Volume 1

INS NATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON
CONVENER: SHRI S.M. INGOLE,

Chief Engineer (Stress Analysis & Seismology), NPCIL
INS National Workshop
on
DESIGN OF NUCLEAR PRESSURE VESSEL &

PIPING
LECTURE NOTES
VOLUME - 1
Indian Nuclear Society

Project Square, Anushaktinagar
Mumbai – 400 094
COURSE CONTENT & FACULTY
Sr.
Lecture Title Speaker Organisation Email contact
No
Overview of Pressure Vessel Design as per
1 Section III Dr. I.A. Khan BARC [email protected]
Nuclear Pressure Vessel Design Criteria:
2 Dr. I.A. Khan BARC [email protected]
Section III - NB
Design by Analysis procedures and Stress
3 linearization schemes in Section III Dr. I.A. Khan BARC [email protected]
Elastic-Plastic behavior and Limit Load
4 Analysis of Pressure Vessels; Theory and Dr. M.K. Samal BARC [email protected]
analysis procedures :
Code rules for Cyclic loading in Section III
5 NB & Fatigue-exemption rules in section III Dr. S.K. Gupta BARC [email protected]
NB
Elastic plastic Cyclic Loading (Fatigue)
6 Dr. S.K. Gupta BARC [email protected]
analysis in ASME Section III
Elevated Temperature design Criteria
7 Dr. M.K. Samal BARC [email protected]
:ASME Section III-NH
Plastic Collapse and Plastic Instability of
8 irradiated component as per SDC-IC and Dr. M.K. Samal BARC [email protected]
RCC-MR Code
Code rules for designing of Class-1 Piping
9 Shri S.M. Ingole NPCIL [email protected]
as per Section III NB
Code rules for designing of Class-2 and 3
10 Shri S.M. Ingole NPCIL [email protected]
Piping as per Section III NC & ND
Design rules for piping support : ASME Shri K.P. Vinod
11 NPCIL [email protected]
Subsection-NF Kumar
Practical application of FEM as per ASME Dr. K.M. [email protected]
12 BARC
Design Code Prabhakaran n
Protection Against Non Ductile Failure:
13 Shri R. Rastogi BARC [email protected]
ASME Code Section III - Appendix-G:
Basis of Flaw evaluation procedure of
14 Shri R. Rastogi BARC [email protected]
ASME Section XI
Design Aspects of Class-I Equipment
Shri Braham
15 (Case Study- Design of Steam Generator & NPCIL [email protected]
Parkash
Pressuriser of 700 MWe IPHWRs)
Fabrication of Calandria and End-shield of [email protected]
16 Shri M.K.Mathur NPCIL
700 MW(e) IPHWR n
Design rules for Tube Sheets: ASME and
17 Shri D. Narain BARC [email protected],
TEMA
Selection of Pressure Vessel and Piping Dr.V.Kain BARC [email protected]
18
Materials
Chapter-1
Overview of Pressure Vessel Design as

per ASME Section III
Dr. I. A. Khan,
Reactor Safety Division
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Tel-25593554
e-mail: [email protected]
Chapter 1: Overview of Pressure Vessel Design as per ASME Section III
________________________________________________________________________
1.0 Introduction to ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel (B&PV) code
From late 18th Century to 1915, thousands of deaths were caused by boiler explosions. ASME
requested engineers from the industry to write a set of design rules that could be adopted into
state laws to ensure proper construction. In 1915, ―Rules for the Construction of Stationary
Boiler and for Allowable Working Pressures‖ were published. The purpose was to address the
needs of the industry with regard to safety of fired steam boilers. In the 50 years after the code
was first published, the number of explosions of properly operated boilers and pressure vessels
was essentially reduced to zero, when the design and construction rules of the ASME code were
made. Subsequently, this outstanding record of safety has remained intact. No other industry has
a better safety record.
In 1925, rules for construction of unfired pressure vessels (Section VIII) were published. The
design rules were almost same as those of Section I (Power boilers) except for service
applications. Steam and water are the working fluids for boilers whereas petroleum, chemicals
and other substances are the primary fluids for Section VIII pressure vessels. Both Section I and
Section VIII were based on design margin of 5 on tensile strength (UTS). Considering the newer
requirements of petrochemical industry, involving higher design pressures, the code committee
decided to form a special task group. The objective was to write a new set of design and
construction rules for Section VIII with lower design margin. However, before the new Section
VIII code was completed, the nuclear industry also required thick-walled reactor pressure
vessels. Co-incidentally both petrochemical and nuclear industry wanted an ASME code based
on lower design margin, thus, resulting in thinner vessels with reduced cost.
The code committee felt that nuclear pressure vessel code would be easier to write than the code
for petrochemical industry. This is because the nuclear pressure vessels contained only steam and
water and the maximum temperature was only 800˚F. The requirements of petrochemical
industry were much more diverse both in terms of working fluid and pressure-temperature
conditions. Thus, the nuclear code (Section III) was published first in 1963, the new code for
non-nuclear vessels (Section VIII, Div. 2) was published in 1968. Except for the fact that the two
codes address different service industries, the design philosophy, design margins are almost
identical.
ASME B&PV code is for design and construction of new pressure-retaining equipments. Once
the code rules have been met the safe operation of the equipment is the responsibility of the
owner and not the manufacturer of the equipment. ASME code rules ensures that components
can be operated safely but only the owner/in-charge of plant facility can assure that the items will
be operated safely. Most accidents associated with code components are caused by improper
maintenance, in-effective in-service-inspection (ISI) and inappropriate operation.
ASME B&PV code is an engineering document and needs proper interpretation. ASME Code is
not a handbook and can not substitute for the use of engineering judgement. Misinterpretations
INS Workshop on Design of Nuclear Pressure Vessel and Piping, 12-16 October 2015 1 of 277
________________________________________________________________________
or misunderstanding of the code provisions may lead to pressure vessels or piping that may not
be safe. The purpose of this course is, thus, to provide some guidance for understanding the code
requirements as they should be applied in practise.
2.0 Structure of ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
Section I: Rules for Construction of Power Boilers
Section II: Materials
Part A - Ferrous Material Specifications
Part B - Nonferrous Material Specifications
Part C - Specifications for Welding Rods, Electrodes, and Filler Metals
Part D - Properties
Section III: Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components
Subsection NCA - General Requirements for Division 1 and Division 2
Division 1- Metallic Components
Subsection NB - Class 1 Components
Subsection NC - Class 2 Components
Subsection ND - Class 3 Components
Subsection NE - Class MC Components
Subsection NF - Piping and Components Supports
Subsection NG - Core Support Structures
Subsection NH - Class 1 Components in elevated temperature service
Division 2 - Code for Concrete Containments
Division 3 - Containments for Transportation and Storage of spent nuclear fuel and
high level radioactive material and waste
Division 5 - High temperature reactors
Section IV: Rules for Construction of Heating Boilers
Section V: Non-destructive Examination
________________________________________________________________________
Section VI: Recommended Rules for the care and Operation of Heating Boilers
Section VII: Recommended Guidelines for the Care of Power Boilers
Section VIII: Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels
Division 1- Unfired Pressure Vessels
Division 2 - Alternative Rules
Division 3 - Alternative Rules for Construction of High Pressure Vessels
Section IX: Welding and Brazing Qualifications
Section X: Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels
Section XI: Rules for In-service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components
Section XII: Rules for Construction and Continued Service of Transport Tanks
3.0 Concept of Design Margins
Any design code incorporates a design margin (often referred as safety factor) to account for
unknowns associated with the design and construction of new components. The design formulae
and structural analyses methods are approximate and have some in-built assumptions. While
material is assumed to be perfectly homogeneous and isotropic, in reality it may not. All
materials have some flaws and discontinuities even though these may be small. A 'safe design'
can only be ensured after accounting for these factors at the design stage itself, typically through
the introduction of an appropriate design margin.
The newer grades of 'clean' steels with less impurities and inclusions, improved fabrication
practices (particularly welding) and better non-destructive examinations methods have resulted
in a reduction in the number of unknowns (uncertainty) at the design stage. This has served as
the basis for reduction in design margin. A reduction in design margin is approved by the code
committee once it is established that the corresponding changes/improvements in the code
requirements have compensated for the reduction. It is in this context that the usage of the term
'design margin' is more appropriate than the term 'safety factor'. A reduction in design margin
does not mean a corresponding reduction in the safety of the components.
When the Boiler code (Section I) was published in 1915, the allowable stresses were based on a
design margin of 5 on tensile strength (UTS). The code for unfired pressure vessels (Section
VIII) when first published in 1925 was also based on the same design margin of 5. However, the
severe shortage of steel arising from World War II demands for the optimum usage of structural
materials. In 1942, a code case was published for both Section I and Section VIII that allowed
________________________________________________________________________
the design margin to be reduced from 5 to 4. The code committee was convinced that the
availability of better materials, improved design methods, restricted fabrication details and
improved non-destructive examinations have compensated for the reduction in design margin. In
1945 this code was incorporated in Section I as well as Section VIII.
In 1955, the newer requirements of petrochemical industry demanded the usage of higher design
pressures and temperatures. The material allowable stress based on a design margin of 4 resulted
in vessel thickness of 6 to 8 inches. Consequently the code committee formed a task group to
write a new Section VIII code based on a design margin of 3. The purpose of the new code was
to reduce the fabrication costs while maintaining the same level of safety. The task group
determined that such a reduction in design margin is possible provided the choice of materials
was restricted, fracture toughness rules were added, design rules for fatigue evaluation were
incorporated and stress analyses was used to analyse most loading conditions. This marked the
beginning of the new concept termed as 'Design by Analyses' as opposed to the traditional
approach of 'Design by Rules'. The outcome was in the form of Section VIII, Div. 2 that was
published in 1968. Since the requirements of nuclear industry were also similar (design and
construction rules based on a design margin of 3), and the code committee felt that a nuclear
code would be easier to write first (discussed earlier), Section III was published in 1963. ASME
has published a common commentary for both these codes in 1968.
Those who understand ASME code would never suggest that nuclear code produces safer vessels
than Section VIII Division 1 or Division 2. The safety of equipment constructed to any of these
codes depends essentially on how they are operated. In fact, the first nuclear reactors were built
as per Boiler code (Section I) and later to the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1. They had
no safety problems.
In 1999, design margin for Section I, Section III, Class 2 (Sub-section NC), Class 3 (Sub-section
ND) and MC (Sub-section NE), and Section VIII Division 1 was reduced from 4 to 3.5. The
purpose of this change was to reduce the cost of construction, to be consistent with the European
design codes that had a good safety record and to take advantage of all improvements in the
ASME code since 1960s. Recently, Section VIII Division 3 was published with design margin
less than 3 for an industry that works with pressure exceeding 345 MPa while maintaining the
same level of safety.
4.0 Applicability of Code Sections
Design and construction rules in all the Sections and Divisions of ASME code are considered to
provide the basis for equally safe pressure vessels. It is important to understand that different
Sections and Divisions of ASME code address different service applications, not different levels
of safety. One Section or Division may be more appropriate for specific service than the other.
When code does not address a particular service application, the appropriate Section or Division
________________________________________________________________________
to use may not be clear. For example, Section III is an inappropriate code for nuclear processing
and storage facilities as service conditions are entirely different from NPP sites. The appropriate
code for such applications is Section VIII for vessels and B 31.3 code for process piping.
Similarly, Subsection NG of Section III is appropriate for internal supports of RPV but not for
supports of nuclear transportation casks or internal supports of nuclear waste storage canisters.
AISC Specifications is more appropriate for such applications. The important point is that the
selection of appropriate code Section is a decision to be made by a responsible, knowledgeable
engineer. Wrong Selection of Code has cost the industry millions of dollars.
5.0 Introduction to Nuclear Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Div. 1
The nuclear pressure vessel code (Section III) has two unique features that distinguish it from
other sections of the ASME code. The first is the concept of 'Safety Classification' of
components. Section III provides design and construction rules for several classes of
components, however, it does not provide guidelines for safety classification of components.
This guidance is derived from system-safety criteria for specific types of nuclear power systems,
such as Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) or Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs). The system
safety criteria may be found in engineering standards such NRC Regulatory Guides, NUREG
reports and AERB guideline. Once safety classification of components is established, Section III
provides separate set of design and construction rules for each class. The Code recognizes
different levels of importance associated with the function of each item/component as it relates to
safe operation of the plant. The Code Classes allow a choice of requirements that provide
assurance of structural integrity and quality commensurate with the relative importance assigned
to the individual items of the plant. The second unique feature of Section III is the concept of
'Service levels'. Components and supports of nuclear power plants may be subjected to various
service conditions that need to be considered. The temperatures, pressures, and mechanical loads
to which components and supports are subjected in performing their design functions are referred
to as Design, Service or Test loadings (article 2140 of Sub-section NCA).
The design rules of section III cover the requirements for strength and pressure integrity of items,
the failure of which would violate the pressure-retaining boundary. The rules cover initial
construction requirements, but do not cover deterioration which may occur in service as a result
of corrosion, erosion or radiation effects etc. This aspect is discussed in more detail in Section 6.
5.1 Safety Classification of components:
Typically, various components that are used in nuclear power plants are classified into three
safety classes:
(a) Safety Class 1: Structures, Systems and components (SSCs) which are required to prevent
the release of core fission product inventory to the containment/environment are classified as
safety class 1. Some of the examples of Class 1 components are:
________________________________________________________________________
 Reactor Pressure Vessel

 Pressurizer Vessel (PWR)
 Reactor Coolant Pumps
 Steam Generators (PWR)
 Reactor Coolant Piping
 Line Valves
 Safety Valve
(b) Safety Class 2: Structures, Systems and components (SSCs) which are required to mitigate
the consequences of an accident which may lead to release of core fission product inventory are
classified as safety class 2. Some of the examples of Class 2 components are:
 Containment
 Emergency Core Cooling system
 Post Accident Heat Removal
 Post Accident Fission Product Removal
 Vessels, Pumps, Valves, Piping, Storage Tanks, and Supports
(c) Safety Class 3: Structures, Systems and components (SSCs) which are required to support
functions of safety class 1 and 2 inventory are classified as safety class 3. Also those SSCs
required to control the release of radioactivity from sources outside reactor building fall under
Class 3. Some of the examples of Class 2 components are:
 Cooling water Systems

 Auxiliary feedwater Systems
 Cooling towers
 Fire water system
 End-shield cooling system
Article 2130 of Sub-section NCA elaborates on which particular sub-section of Section III shall
be referred for different classes of components. The gist of code classes and the applicable
section/sub-section are as follows:
 Safety Class 1 Sub-section NB

 Safety Class 2 Sub-section NC
 Safety Class 3 Sub-section ND
 Class MC (metal containment) Sub-section NE
 Class CS (core support structures) Sub-section NG
 Support (piping and vessel) Sub-section NF
________________________________________________________________________
Some components may be constructed in accordance with multiple Code Classes. For e.g., a heat
exchanger may have primary-side tubing constructed in accordance with Subsection NB, while
the secondary-side shell is constructed in accordance with Subsection NC.
5.2 Service levels: Section III of ASME code does not define plant and system operating and test
conditions, nor does it address their significance for the design and operability of components
and supports. Guidance for selecting appropriate operating and test conditions may be found in
applicable regulatory and enforcement requirement documents. In the Design Specification, the
Owner identifies loadings and load combinations and establishes appropriate Design, Service,
and Test Limits for each component or support for these loading conditions.
Based on frequency of occurrence, service loads are classified as:
 Level - A (Normal) : up to 1
-2
 Level - B (Upset) : 10 to 1
-4 -2
 Level - C (Emergency) and : 10 to 10
-7 -4
 Level - D (Faulted) : 10 to 10
5.3 Loadings and allowable limits: Loadings are identified on the basis of all anticipated
operating and test conditions postulated to occur during the intended service life of the
component or support. Design loadings for components and support account for Design pressure,
design temperature and design mechanical loads. Design pressure shall not be less than the
maximum difference in pressure between inside and outside surface and must account for
pressure surges, static pressure head etc. The design temperature shall not be less than the
expected maximum mean metal temperature through the thickness of the part considered for
which Level A Service Limits are specified. Design Mechanical Loads shall be selected so that
when combined with the effects of Design Pressure, they produce the highest primary stresses of
any coincident combination of loadings for which Level A Service Limits are designated in the
Design Specification. Service loadings (pressure, temperature, mechanical loads,
cycles/transients) are identified in design specifications.
Service Loadings are not required to be identified for Class 2 and 3 components, Class 2 and 3
component supports, and Class MC supports, when the Design Pressure and Design Mechanical
loads result in stresses of greater magnitude, relative to the allowable stress or stress intensity at
the Design Temperature, than would the Service Loadings relative to the allowables for the
appropriate Service Level. When this is not the case, and for piping and its supports, Service
loadings shall be identified in the Design Specification. Test loadings are those arising from
hydrotest or pneumatic testing.
________________________________________________________________________
Section III provides for different limits that may be applied to various loads and load
combinations. It does not specify which of these limits are to be applied to any specific load or
load combination. Section III requirements do not provide assurance of operability of
components in which mechanical motion is required. However, Section III does require
operability of pressure relief valves.
The limits for design loadings are those of applicable sub-section of Section III. For service
loads, different allowable limits are specified. These service limits are as follows:
 Level A service limits: This limit is for normal operating loads identified as level A
service loadings. Components must withstand these loads without any damage & no
inspection is warranted.
 Level B service limits: This limit is for loadings identified as level B service loadings.
Components must withstand these loadings without damage requiring repairs.
 Level C service limits: This limit is for loadings identified as level C service loadings
that may lead to large deformation in the areas of structural discontinuity which may
necessitate the thorough inspection followed by repair if required.
 Level D service limits: This limit permits gross deformation with loss of dimensional
stability. Component may be out of service for repair or replacement.
6.0 Scope and applicability of Section III-NB (NB-1000)
Sub-section NB provides rules for design and construction of class 1 components. The rules of
NB shall not be used for items which are to be subjected to metal temperatures that exceed the
temperature limit in Section II, Part D. Above those temperatures, the creep and stress rupture
characteristics of materials permitted to be used become significant factors which are not
presently covered by the rules of this Subsection. Fatigue design curves and specified methods
for fatigue analysis are not applicable above 700°F (for carbon and low alloy steels) and above
800°F (for austenitic steels and nickel alloys). The design pressure shall not exceed 5000 Psi
(34.5 MPa).
6.1 Material requirements for Class 1 Components (NB-2000)
The design rules for Class 1 components are based on the assumption that the materials chosen
for pressure-retaining components are inherently tough. The material must have a high
percentage elongation (>20%) and adequate fracture toughness. For class 1 components, fracture
toughness requirements are specified in NB-2300. As per these requirements, the material must
have a Charpy V-notch energy (CVN) of 50 ft-lb (68 J) and lateral expansion of 35 milli-inches
at a temperature of RTNDT + 60 F. The temperature (RTNDT) known as reference temperature nil-
________________________________________________________________________
ductility temperature is established from the drop-weight test, which is carried out as per the
requirements of ASTM E 208, and Charpy test. The procedure is applied to base material, weld
material and heat affected zone. NB 2300 also provides exemptions from impact testing for
certain materials like austenitic steels, non ferrous materials, and materials with a nominal
section thickness of less than 5/8 in. (16 mm).
The material allowable (stress intensity) for class 1 components are specified in Section II, Part
D. Appendix 2 of Section II provides the basis for establishing design stress intensity values (S m)
for Section III Class 1 and Section VIII Division 2 components. The S m values are obtained as
follows:
For Ferritic Steels:
Design Stress Intensity Sm = Min. of [2/3 y or 1/3u] at RT/DT
For Austenitic Stainless Steels:
Sm = Min. of [2/3 y at RT or 1/3u at DT or 90% y at DT]
If component alignment is important (e.g. in mating bodies as in flanges etc.) then:
Sm = Min. of [2/3 y or 1/3u] at DT
7.0 Scope and applicability of Section III-NC & ND (NC-1000 & ND-1000)
Many of the requirements for Class 2 and Class 3 components are similar. Since there is more
similarity between the two sections than the differences, the two sections are covered together.
Sub-sections NC and ND cover a very wide range of vessels, tanks, and components (piping
valves and pumps). The temperature limits for Class 2 and Class 3 vessels are governed by the
material properties specified in Section II part D. In general, the maximum temperatures for
which there are allowable stresses listed in ASME II, Part D, are lower for ASME III NC or ND
than they are for ASME VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 because nuclear plants cooled by water are
designed to temperatures below the creep range.
7.1 Material requirements for Class 2 and Class 3 Components (NC-2000 & ND-2000)
For Class 2 and Class 3 components, fracture toughness requirements are specified in NC/ND-
2300. The rules provide exemption from impact testing for certain materials provided the lowest
service temperature is above the nil-ductility transition (NDT) temperature by a certain margin
specified by Appendix R. For Class 2 vessels, acceptance criteria for impact testing is based on
one of the following considerations, that is, either the Charpy test at or below the lowest service
________________________________________________________________________
metal temperature shall meet the requirements of energy absorption and lateral expansion
specified in NC 2330 or the difference of lowest service temperature and NDT as obtained from
drop weight test shall meet the requirements of appendix R. For Class 3 vessels, acceptance
criterion for impact testing is based on Charpy test alone and shall meet the requirements of
energy absorption and lateral expansion specified in ND 2330.
The material allowable stress values for class 2 and class 3 components are specified in Section
II, Part D. Appendix 1 of Section II provides the basis for establishing the allowable stress values
for Section I, Section III Class 2 and Section VIII Division 1 components. The allowable stress
values are obtained as follows:
At temperature below creep regime:
Ferritic steels: Min. of [2/3 y or 1/3.5u] at RT/DT
For austenitic steels: Min. of [2/3 y at RT or 1/3.5u at DT or 90% y at DT]
The higher allowable stress up to 90% of y is not recommended for design of flanges or other
components where distortions may be objectionable.
In creep regime, the allowable stress is the lowest of the following:

(1) Average stress to produce a creep rate of 0.1% in 1000 hours
(2) Favg x Average stress to cause rupture after 100,000 hours
(3) 80% of minimum stress to cause rupture after 100,000 hours
Here Favg is a multiplier specified in Section II, part D.
8.0 Fabrication procedures for Class 1 Components (NB-4000)
The fabrication rules for Class 1 components are specified in NB-4000. Requirements related for
forming, fitting and alignment are specified. This includes tolerances on cross-sectional
diameters, permissible deviations from true geometric shape (like ovality), details on weld joint
categories (NB-4240) etc. Impact tests of the weld metal and heat affected zone are performed in
accordance with the requirements of NB-4335. Rules governing making, examining, and
repairing of welds are provided.
8.1 Fabrication procedures for Class 2 and Class 3 Components (NC/ND-4000)
The fabrication rules for Class 2 and Class 3 components were taken from Section VIII Division
1 and Division 2, and from Section III NB. NC-4000 is essentially the same as ND-4000, except
________________________________________________________________________
that NC-4000 includes special rules applicable to vessels designed in accordance with NC-3200,
that is, vessels that are equivalent to ASME VIII, Division 2. These special weld joint
configuration rules are contained in NC-4260 and are lifted virtually from ASME VIII, Division
2. The rules for fabrication of Class 2 components are very similar to the rules for Class 1.
However, the details of construction are not as restrictive. There are more options available for
fabrication details in Class 3 construction. The restrictions on welding and post–weld heat
treatment are the same as those for Class 2 components.
9.0 Post-weld heat treatment
Welded joints develop high residual stresses after the weld is completed. These stresses are
difficult to quantify and are not directly accounted in design. However, they are not ignored. The
ASME Code rules attempt to reduce the effect of residual stresses when necessary through post
weld heat treatment (PWHT) of some welded configurations. Rules are based on the type of
materials and thickness of welds. Besides the beneficial effects of PWHT, there are some
detrimental aspects of this operation. For example, extended PWHT can reduce material strength
and impact toughness. The important points to note are:
 Current rules have been effective and have not been found to be seriously detrimental.
 Code rules are adjusted as knowledge increases.
 Code rules related to PWHT are the same for different types of code components.
10.0 Non-destructive Examination (NB/NC/ND-5000)
Non-destructive examinations (NDE) are required to determine the adequacy of fabrication

methods. For welded components NDE methods include radiography (RT) and ultra-sonic (UT)
examination which are helpful to identify volumetric condition of the weld. The purpose is to
ensure that weld does not have cracks, lack of penetration, lack of fusion etc. For surface
examination magnetic particle testing (MT) and liquid penetrant (LP) are used. The NDE
methods are not all equivalent. While radiography is more suitable for volumetric flaws like
porosity, Ultra-sonic is more effective for planar flaws like cracks. The extent and type of NDE
required for various weld categories is different for different class of components.
NDE for base metal is primarily defined by the material requirements covered in Section II of the
Code. For welds, NDE is defined within NB/NC. Three subsections within NB/NC define the
requirements: specifically, NB/NC-5200 for required examination for welds based on the
categories defined in the welding subsections; NB/NC-5300 for the acceptance standards; and
NB/NC-5400 for examination after hydrostatic tests.
Section I, Section III ND, and Section VIII Division 1 use joint efficiency factors (E) which are
based on the amount of radiography of the main seams. For full radiography E=1, for spot
radiography E=0.85 and without radiography E=0.7. If weld seams are not fully radiographed,
________________________________________________________________________
chances are high that some part of the main seam welds will have flaws or discontinuities. This is
the reason for the use of full radiography. The approach of using efficiency factors to account for
potential flaws or discontinuities has been very successful as evident from the safety record of
pressure vessels constructed to the rules of ASME codes.
11.0 Testing (NB/NC/ND-6000)
Every pressure vessel is subjected to a hydrostatic test (or an alternative pneumatic test) prior to
the service application. Originally, hydrotest was intended as a demonstration that the vessel
could be overloaded by a pressure even 50% greater than the design pressure without any
concern. As the allowable stresses were increased, this pressure has been reduced. As per NB-
6220, Class 1 components shall be hydro tested at not less than 1.25 times design pressure. The
stress limits specified in NB-3226 shall be used in determining the maximum permissible test
pressure. It is recommended that the test be made at a temperature that will minimize the
possibility of brittle fracture (Appendix G).
For thin vessels, where hydrotest is not practical, it is permissible to substitute a pneumatic test at
lower pressure (1.1 times design pressure). The reason for lower pressure is the concern arising
from high potential energy stored in compressed air.
The requirements for hydro/pneumatic testing of Class 2 and Class 3 components are essentially
identical to those of NB.
12.0 Corrosion, Erosion and Environmental effects
Corrosion and erosion are caused by service conditions. The code requires the design
specification to identify erosion and corrosion requirements. More precisely, it has relegated the
possible failure modes of erosion, corrosion and environmental effects to material selection.
Usual way is to increase the thickness of the material (10% for piping) based on service
conditions and response of the material. Identification of proper allowance, however, is not a
simple task. The chemistry of steel required for conditions involving erosion may be far different
from the required chemistry for a material in a corrosive environment. In 1999, Appendix W
was added to the code to provide information regarding different forms of corrosion and other
environmental conditions not explicitly addressed by Sec. III. Extensive references are also
provided in Appendix W.
Service experience has shown that long term exposure to light-water reactor (LWR)
environments does more damage to structural materials than originality thought. In addition, long
________________________________________________________________________
time irradiation exposure has been found to produce unexpected degradation of the fracture
toughness of pressure vessel steels. Accordingly, additional steps have been needed to monitor
these effects by in-service inspections and surveillance materials testing to assure safe long term
operation of nuclear pressure vessels. Neither Section III nor Section XI includes specific
requirements for such surveillance coupons.
*****************************************************************************
Chapter-2
Nuclear Pressure vessel design

criteria: Section III-NB
Dr. I. A. Khan,
Tel-25593554
Chapter 2: Nuclear Pressure vessel design criteria: Section III-NB
______________________________________________________________________________
1.0 Introduction
In chapter 1, an introduction to nuclear pressure vessel code ASME Section III Division 1 was
provided. The concept of safety classification of components, and service levels which are
unique features of Section III were discussed. The material requirements, fabrication procedures,
post weld heat treatment, non-destructive examination, and testing requirements for Class 1/2/3
components were briefly explained. In this chapter, the design criteria and structural stress limits
for Class 1, Class2, and Class 3 pressure vessels are discussed.
The General Design requirements for Class 2 and Class 3 components (NC/ND-3100) are similar
to that of Class 1 (NB-3100) in that each identifies the requirements for loading conditions,
design loadings, design pressure, design temperature, design mechanical loads, and design
allowable stress intensity or stress and service conditions. While NB identifies stress intensity
allowables, NC and ND refer only to stress allowable. This is the case since most of the Class 2
components (except for vessels) and all of the class 3 components are design by rules which are
based on maximum principal stress theory.
2.0 Design Criteria of Class 1 Components (NB-3000)
ASME Section III NB-3000 specify structural design limits for pressure vessel and piping
components intended for nuclear power plants where the consequence of failure is considered to
be a threat to the health and safety of the public. Thus the design philosophy of Section III NB is
to provide structural limits that insure safe plant operation with highest reliability and little threat
to public health and safety. The rules and requirements for Class 1 components (Section III NB)
are based on the design by analysis philosophy addressing specific structural failure modes.
Because of the prominent role played by stress analysis in designing vessels by the rules of
Section III NB and because of the necessity to integrate the design and analysis efforts, the
procedure is termed ―design by analysis.‖
2.1 Design by Analysis
Pressure vessel design has been historically based on Design by Formula. Standard vessel
configurations are sized using a series of simple formulae and charts such as those provided in
ASME Section VIII Div. 1. This design approach does not require a detailed evaluation of all
stresses. It is recognized that high localized and secondary bending stresses may exist but are
allowed for by use of higher safety factor and a set of design rules. An example of such a rule is
the minimum allowable knuckle radius (at least 6% of crown radius) for a torospherical head.
The basic intention here is to control the compressive hoop stresses so as to eliminate possibility
of local buckling at shell-head junction.
______________________________________________________________________________
In addition to Design by Formula route many national codes and standards for pressure vessels
and boiler design (such as ASME Section III Division 1 NB, and Section VIII Division 2, BS
5500) do provide for a Design by Analysis, DBA, route, where the admissibility of a design is
checked, or proven, via a detailed investigation of the structure‘s behaviour under the external
loads to be considered. This detailed evaluation of stresses permits substituting knowledge of
localized stresses and the use of higher allowable in place of larger factor of safety as used in
design by formula approach.
3.0 Identification of structural failure modes
Section III identifies 8 possible failure modes which are of direct relevance to pressure vessel
design. These are as follows:
1. Excessive elastic deformation including elastic instability.

2. Excessive plastic deformation or bursting.
3. Brittle fracture.
4. Stress rupture/creep deformation (inelastic).
5. Plastic instability—incremental collapse.
6. High strain—low-cycle fatigue.
7. Stress corrosion.
8. Corrosion fatigue.
The failure mode of elastic instability is related to functional requirements or the potential for
buckling. This particular failure mode is addressed using the design-by-formula approach
provided in NB-3100. The concern arising from brittle fracture is addressed mainly through
material toughness requirements but includes some simplified analyses such as those presented
in Appendix G. The failure mode of stress rupture/creep deformation is not addressed in NB. The
analyses requirements and the allowable limits are provided in Sub-section NH. The failure
modes of Stress corrosion and Corrosion fatigue are the responsibility of the designed and are
not addressed by the code. For further details, please refer section 12.0 of chapter 1. The failure
modes of excessive plastic deformation/bursting, incremental collapse (also referred as
progressive distortion) and low cycle fatigue are addressed in NB-3000. Section III NB associate
each of these three failure modes with a particular stress category and provide allowable limits to
ensure adequate margins. The setting of allowable stress values requires dividing the stresses into
categories and assigning different allowable values to each of these stress categories. The stress
categories are as follows:
(a) Primary Stress

(1) General primary membrane stress (Pm)
(2) Local primary membrane stress (PL)
(3) Primary bending stress (Pb)
______________________________________________________________________________
(b) Secondary stress (Q)

(c) Peak stress (F)
The primary stress limits are intended to prevent gross plastic deformation and to provide a
nominal factor of safety on ductile burst pressure. The primary plus secondary stress limits are
intended to prevent excessive plastic deformation leading to incremental collapse, and to validate
the application of elastic analysis when performing the fatigue evaluation. (c) The peak stress
limit is intended to prevent fatigue failure as a result of cyclic loadings. (d) Special stress limits
are provided for elastic and inelastic instability.
4.0 Theory of failure
Another special feature of ASME Section III NB (previously also of Section VIII Division 2) is
the application of the maximum shear stress (Tresca) theory of failure rather than the use of the
maximum principal stress theory. It has been known for many years that the shear theory is more
accurate than the maximum principal stress theory in terms of failure, especially for distortion
from plastic response of the material. Admittedly, the shear theory is more difficult to apply than
the principal stress theory but it is more accurate.
Most experiments show that the distortion energy theory is even more accurate than the shear
theory, but the shear theory was chosen because it is a little more conservative, it is easier to
apply, and it offers some advantages in some applications of the fatigue analysis. The recent
versions of Section VIII Division 2 (2008 onwards), however, has adopted the distortion theory.
However, NB still requires the use of shear theory for elastic analysis. For plastic analysis, NB
also allows the use of the distortion energy theory for establishing yield in the three dimensional
condition. The key here is that the shear theory (Tresca) is the basis for determining the
allowable stresses.
The basic expressions of the three failure theory are as follows:
Principal Stress theory: 1 = y (1 > 2 > 3)
Shear Stress (Tresca) theory: 1 - 3 = y
1
Maxi. Distortion Energy (Von-Mises): [(1   2 )2  ( 2   3 )2  ( 3  1 )2 ]1/2   Y
2
5.0 General definitions: The general definitions typically used in design by analysis
procedure (NB-3200) are described below:
______________________________________________________________________________
(a) Stress Intensity: Stress intensity is defined as twice the maximum shear stress, which is the
difference between the algebraically largest principal stress and the algebraically smallest
principal stress (1 - 3) at a given point.
(b) Membrane Stress: Membrane stress is the component of normal stress that is uniformly
distributed and equal to the average stress across the thickness of the section.
(c) Bending Stress: Bending stress is the component of normal stress that varies across the
thickness. The variation may or may not be linear.
(d) Gross structural discontinuity: It is a geometric or material discontinuity, which affects the
stress or strain distribution through the entire wall thickness. These stresses produce a net
bending and membrane force when integrated through the wall thickness. Examples are head
to shell junctions, flange to shell junctions, shell-nozzle junctions etc.
(e) Local structural discontinuity: It is a geometric or material discontinuity, which affects the
stress or strain distribution through a fractional part of the wall thickness. These stresses
produce much localized deformations and have no significant effects. Examples are small
fillet radii, small attachments etc
(f) Primary Stress: Primary stress is any normal stress or a shear stress developed by an
imposed loading which is necessary to satisfy the laws of equilibrium of external and internal
forces and moments. The basic characteristic of a primary stress is that it is not self-limiting.
These stresses increase in direct proportion of load irrespective of the shape of stress strain
curve. Primary stresses which considerably exceed the yield strength will result in failure, or
at least in gross deformations. Primary stress is usually divided into general primary
membrane, primary bending, and local primary membrane stress.
(g) General Primary membrane stress: It is the component of normal stress, which is
uniformly distributed and equal to the average value of stress across the thickness of the
section.
1t
 m    n dx 
t0
Based on equivalence of force
This stress occurs across the entire cross-section of the vessel. It is remote from discontinuities
such as shell-head junctions, nozzles and support locations. Few typical examples are hoop and
meridional stress due to internal pressure, membrane stress in the centre of flat/hemispherical
head, global bending stress due to dead weight/wind, membrane stress in the nozzle wall within
the area of reinforcement due to pressure or external loads etc.
______________________________________________________________________________
(h) Primary bending stress: It is the variable component of normal stress. The variation may or
may not be linear across the thickness. Equivalent linear bending stress of an actual variable
normal stress is given by following equation
t/2
6
b  2
t 
t / 2
n xdx 
Based on equivalence of bending moment
There are relatively few areas where primary bending occurs. Some typical examples are
bending stress in the centre of a flat head or crown of a dished head, bending stress in the
ligament of closely spaced openings. The need for dividing primary stresses into membrane and
bending is that the calculated value of a primary bending stress may be allowed to go higher than
that of a primary membrane stress.
(i) Local Primary membrane stress: It is essentially a combination of two different types of
stresses. The combination it represents is general primary membrane stress (P m) plus
secondary membrane stress (Q m) produced from unrelenting/sustained loads. It is important
to note that cases arise where sustained loads can give rise to secondary stresses such as in
regions of gross structural discontinuities. These have been grouped together in order to
limit the allowable stress for this particular combination to a level lower than allowed for
other secondary stresses. Local primary stresses have some self-limiting characteristics like
secondary stresses. Since they are localized, once yielding occurs load gets redistributed to
stiffer portions of the vessel. However, since large deformations associated with yielding, in
many cases, may not be acceptable an allowable stress lower than secondary stresses is
assigned. The basic difference between a primary local stress and a secondary stress is that a
primary local stress is produced by a load that is unrelenting; the stress just gets
redistributed. In a secondary stress, yielding relaxes the load and is truly self-limiting. The
ability of primary local stress to redistribute itself after the yield strength is reached locally
provides a safety-valve effect. Thus, the higher allowable stress applies only to a local area.
As per ASME Section III Div.1 a stressed region may be considered as local if the distance
over which membrane stress intensity exceeds 1.1 S m (here Sm is the allowable membrane
stress intensity as defined in Section III Div.1) does not extends in the meridional direction
by more than 1.0 Rt where R is the minimum mid-surface radius of curvature and t is the
minimum thickness in the region under consideration. Similarly regions of local primary
stress intensity involving axi-symmetric membrane stress distributions which exceed 1.1 S m
shall not be closer than in the meridional direction than 2.5 Rt . Typical example of local
primary stress is the sum of general primary membrane stress and membrane portion of
discontinuity stresses such as those occur at shell-head junctions and nozzle-shell junctions.
Bending portion of these discontinuity stresses is classified as secondary.
______________________________________________________________________________
(j) Secondary stress: It is any normal or a shear stress developed by the constraint of adjacent
material or by self-constraint of the structure. The basic characteristic of secondary stress is
that it is self-limiting. This means that local yielding and minor distortion can satisfy the
condition which causes the stress to occur. Secondary stress could be divided into membrane
and bending components, just as was done for primary stress, but after the removal of local
membrane stress to the primary category, it appeared that all the remaining secondary
stresses could be controlled by the same limit and this division was unnecessary. Thermal
stresses which can produce distortion of the structures are placed in the secondary category.
If a stress of this type, neglecting stress concentrations, exceeds twice the yield strength of
the material, the elastic analysis may be invalid and successive thermal cycles may produce
incremental distortion. Examples are: the stress produced by an axial temperature distribution
in a cylindrical shell, the stress produced by the temperature difference between a nozzle and
the shell to which It is attached, and the equivalent linear stress produced by the radial
temperature distribution in a cylindrical shell. Thermal stresses which result from almost
complete suppression of the differential expansion, and thus cause no significant distortion
are classified as peak stresses. Examples are: the stresses due to non-linear portion of a
through-wall temperature gradient in a cylindrical shell, the thermal stress in a cladding
material that has a coefficient of expansion different from that of the base metal. Non-
uniform portion of the stress distribution in a thick walled vessel due to internal pressure is
also classified as secondary.
(k) Peak stress: It is that increment of stress, which is additive to the primary plus secondary
stresses by reason of local discontinuities, or local thermal stress including the effects, if any,
of stress concentrations. These are highly localized and cannot lead to failure/gross
deformations in single application. These are objectionable from fatigue point of view.
Typical examples are stress at the corner of a discontinuity, thermal stress in a wall caused by
a sudden change in surface temperature (thermal shock), the thermal stress in the austenitic
steel cladding of a carbon steel vessel, stress due to notch etc.
6.0 Basis of Section III NB Stress limits
As discussed earlier, the limits on primary stresses were arrived to ensure protection against
gross deformations/plastic collapse and to provide a nominal design margin against ductile
bursting. The limits specified on the primary stresses are as follows:
(a) General Primary membrane stress limit: Primary membrane stresses are not allowed to
approach yield since beyond that there is the possibility of gross plastic deformation/collapse.
By incorporating a design margin of 1.5 on yield and 3 on tensile strength both through-
thickness yielding and tensile instability are eliminated. Thus, the design limit is as follows
Pm < Sm
______________________________________________________________________________
(b) Primary membrane plus primary bending stress limit: The limit on general primary
membrane plus primary bending stress intends to avoid net section yielding/plastic collapse.
Consider the case of a rectangular cross-section beam subjected to combined axial load and a
bending moment. If axial load alone is present, then net-section yielding will start a load
Po=σybt. If bending moment alone is present, then initiation of yielding will start from top
and bottom fibres at Mo= σybt2/6. Thus, the condition for initiation of yielding can be
expressed as:
 axial   bending   y
P 6M
 y
bt bt 2
The above equation can also be expressed as
P M
 1
Po M o
Assuming the material behaviour as elastic-perfectly plastic (non-hardening), for net-section

yielding, the stress throughout the cross-section becomes σy. The shift in neutral axis (arising
from non-symmetric stress distribution) can be computed from the force equilibrium
condition.
t  t 
 yb   c    yb   c   P
2  2 
______________________________________________________________________________
P
c
2b y
The applied bending moment M, for a given axial load P, corresponding to net-section
yielding can be expressed as:
t  1 t 
 yb   c   c    c   *2  M

2 2 2  
On substituting the value of c, the above equation can be expressed as
4M P2
 1
 ybt 2  y2b2t 2
2
M P
  1
1.5M o  Po 
M   P 2 
 1.5 1    
Mo   Po  
The above equation provides the condition for net-section yielding and is the basis of limit on
combined sum of general primary membrane and primary bending stress. When axial load P is
zero, the moment M required to cause net-section yielding is 50% higher than that required to
cause the initiation of yielding at the extreme fibres. This is primarily due to the fact that primary
bending stress has an ability to redistribute, whereas primary membrane can not. For the case of
primary membrane, there is no distinction between initiation of yielding and net-section yielding.
Thus, the allowable value of primary bending stress can be 50% higher than that of primary
membrane. It is, however, important to remember that the ratio of bending stress required to
produce net-section yielding to that required for initiation of yielding (often referred as plastic
shape factor) is geometry dependent. For different geometries, the plastic shape factor is
different.
Now,
______________________________________________________________________________
P P P M 6M P
  m &   b
Po  y bt  y M o  y bt 2
y
P M P  Pb
  m
Po M o y
For: Pm/y = 0 , (Pm + Pb) / y = 1.5

For: Pm/y = 0.25 , (Pm + Pb) / y = 1.656
For: Pm/y = 0.5 , (Pm + Pb) / y = 1.625
For: Pm/y = 0.75 , (Pm + Pb) / y = 1.406
For: Pm/y = 1 , (Pm + Pb) / y = 1.0
A plot of figure representing the condition of net-section yielding/plastic collapse for combined
primary membrane and primary bending is shown in Fig. 1. Incorporating a design margin of 1.5
on net-section yielding, the allowable limits for design condition were obtained. Thus, the design
limit is as follows:
Pm + Pb < 1.5Sm
Fig. 1: ASME Section III NB limit on

primary membrane plus primary bending
Pm+ Pb to σy provides adequate safety. The safety
It may be seen that limiting P m to (2/3)σy andlimit.
factor is not constant for all combinations of tension and bending, but a design rule to provide a
uniform safety factor would be needlessly complicated.
______________________________________________________________________________
(c) Local Primary stress limit: The local primary membrane stress (PL) differs from the general
primary membrane stress in that local membrane stress produces load redistribution, whereas
the general membrane stress does not have this capability. The local primary membrane
stress is self-limiting and when it exceeds yield, the external load will be resisted by other
parts of the structure, but this shift may involve intolerable distortion.
Thus, the PL + Pb is considered to be primary. Because of the ability to redistribute the applied
load, the stress limit is set as the yield strength-1.5Sm. It is noted that the primary bending stress
(Pb) limit is 1.5Sm which is the same as PL. Therefore, the design margin for PL + Pb is 1.5 with
the acceptance of minor permanent deformation.
(d) Secondary stress limit: The limit on secondary (strain-controlled) stresses were arrived to
ensure shakedown to 'elastic action' and, thus, to validate the application of elastic fatigue
analysis for cyclic loads.
Fig.2: Criteria for shakedown and plastic cycling under

secondary stresses.
Consider, for example, the outer fiber of a beam strained in tension to a value ε1, somewhat
beyond the yield strain as shown in Fig. 2 by the path o-a-b. The calculated elastic stress would
be S=S1=Eε1. Since we are considering the case of a secondary stress, we assume that the nature
of loading is such as to cycle the strain from zero to ε1 and back to zero. When the beam is
returned to its undeformed position O, the outer fiber has a residual compressive stress of
magnitude S1–Sy. On any subsequent loading, the residual compression must be removed before
the stress goes into tension and thus the elastic stress range has been increased by the quantity S1
______________________________________________________________________________
– Sy. If S1 = 2Sy, the elastic range becomes 2Sy, but if S1 > 2Sy, the fiber yields in compression,
as shown by the line e-f in Fig. 2(b) and all subsequent cycles produce plastic strain. Therefore,
2Sy is the maximum value of elastically calculated secondary stress which will shakedown to
purely elastic action.
(e) Primary plus secondary stress limit: When combined primary and secondary stresses are
present, the actual limit is on total strain range. The total allowable strain range should be
less than 2εy. Thus, in terms of equivalent elastic stresses, the allowable limit is as follows:
Δ (Pm+Pb+Q)< 2σy
It is important to remember that this limit is on through-thickness primary plus secondary stress
range and the peak stress are not included here. The primary-plus-secondary stress limit is
intended to prevent excessive plastic deformation leading to incremental collapse (ratchetting),
and to validate the application of elastic analysis when performing the fatigue evaluation. If the P
+Q limit is not met, NB-3200 presents an additional procedure for evaluating the potential for
ratchetting and define a penalty factor for the fatigue analysis. Such cases will be discussed in
more detail in other chapters.
(f) Peak stress limit: The load controlled or strain controlled cycling across the gross section
causes Strain Cycling in the local regions of high stress concentration. The stresses induced
in these regions are Peak Stresses. In reality there would be high strain concentration.
Therefore, local stresses obtained using elastic analysis are pseudo-elastic stresses. In such
regions the main cause of concern is plastic cycling leading to Fatigue Damage. The limits on
Peak Stresses are governed by Fatigue and will be discussed separately.
It is important to note that the thermal stresses associated with gross distortion of the structure
(Fig. 3) in which it occurs are accounted in the P+Q limit whereas the local thermal stresses
associated with almost complete suppression of the differential expansion, thus producing no
significant distortion, are accounted in fatigue analyses.
______________________________________________________________________________
Gross
Sections
Local
Regions
Fig. 3: Schematic of gross distortions vs local deformations.
7.0 Elastic Analysis procedure for Class 1 components (NB-3200)
ASME code offers two routes to design by analysis (DBA), the so-called elastic route and an
inelastic route which requires the calculation of limit and shakedown loads. Most of the DBA
guidelines given in various codes are essentially based on elastic analysis. In this chapter, only
elastic analysis procedure will be discussed. The in-elastic procedure will be discussed separately
in Chapter 4.
To evaluate protection against various failure modes, the results from an elastic stress analysis of
the component subject to defined loading conditions are categorized and compared to an
associated limiting value. The limiting values for various categories of the primary stress have
been described in the previous section. A quantity known as the 'Stress intensity' (twice the
maximum shear stress) is computed at several locations in the component and compared to the
allowable value of stress intensity (Sm) to determine if the component is suitable for the intended
design conditions. The stress intensity calculated from the stress components, utilizing the Tresca
yield criterion, is used for comparison with the mechanical strength properties of the material
obtained in tests under uni-axial load (Sm). The following procedure is used to compute and
categorize the stress intensity at a point in a component and to determine the acceptability of the
resulting stress state.
STEP 1: Determine the types of loads acting on the component. In general, separate load cases
are analyzed to evaluate "load-controlled" loads such as pressure and externally applied reactions
due to weight effects and "strain-controlled" loads resulting from thermal gradients and imposed
displacements.
______________________________________________________________________________
STEP 2: At the point on the vessel that is being investigated, calculate the stress tensor (six
unique components of stress) for each type of load. Assign each of the computed stress tensors to
one or to a group of the categories defined in section 2.2
STEP 3: Sum the stress tensors (stresses are added on a component basis) assigned to each
equivalent stress category. The final result is a stress tensor representing the effects of all the
loads assigned to each equivalent stress category.
STEP 4: Determine the principal stresses of the sum of the stress tensors assigned to the
equivalent stress categories, and compute the stress intensity.
STEP 5: To evaluate protection against plastic collapse, ratcheting and fatigue compare the
computed stress intensity to their corresponding allowable values.
7.1 Example-1: Evaluation of stress intensity for a cylindrical vessel under internal
pressure
Consider the case of a cylindrical pressure vessel subjected to an internal pressure p. The outside
radius is Ro and the inside radius is Ri. The three principal stress components are σh, σa, and σr
respectively. The three stress components, as obtained from Lami's theory, are as follows:
Ri2 p  Ro2  Ri2 p  Ro2  Ri2 p

r  1  2  h
;   2 
1 2  a
;  
( Ro2  Ri2 )  r  ( Ro
2
 Ri 
) r  ( Ro2  Ri2 )
Average σ r   p (inner side) to 0(outer side )  σ3
R i2 p  R o2 
Ro
pR i
Average σ h  
Ri
1  2
(R o2  R i2 )  r
 dr 
 t
 σ1
where, t  Ro  Ri
The primary membrane stress intensity Pm, can be obtained as follows:
Pm = Average σh - average σr
______________________________________________________________________________
pRi   p 
Pm   
t  2 
On limiting the value of P m to Sm
pRi p
  Sm
t 2
pRi
t
Sm  0.5 p
The thickness equation obtained above for cylindrical vessel has been provided in vessels design
rules in NB-3300.
7.2 Example-2: Evaluation of stress intensity for a spherical vessel under internal
pressure
Consider the case of a spherical pressure vessel subjected to an internal pressure p. The outside
radius is Ro and the inside radius is Ri. The three principal stress components are σh, σa, and σr
respectively. The three stress components, as obtained from Lami's theory, are as follows:
Ri3 p  Ro3  Ri3 p  Ro3 

r  3 1  3  ;  h or  a  3 1  
( Ro  Ri3 )  r  ( Ro  Ri3 )  2r 3 
Proceeding in the manner of Cylinder, the minimum required thickness for Sphere can be
expressed as:
pRi
t
2Sm  p
The thickness equation obtained above for spherical pressure vessel has been provided in vessel
design rules in NB-3300.
7.3 Margin on ductile burst pressure
The suitability of the thickness equations, based on primary membrane stress limit, has also been
examined against experimental burst pressure. Based on experimental data, Svensson's has
______________________________________________________________________________
proposed burst pressure equations for both cylindrical and spherical vessels under internal
pressure. The burst pressure equations are as follows:
u
 0.25   e  Ro
pb   u1     ln( )
  u  0.227    u  Ri
u
 0.433   1.155 e  Ro
pb   u1    ln( )

 u  0.227 
 u  R
Here,
1 1
u = True Strain at  u;  u = Engg. UTS; e = 2.718 (exponential constant)
The margin on ductile burst pressure is provided below:
304 SS : u = 75 ksi; y = 30ksi; Sm = 20.0 ksi

SA-516: u = 55 ksi; y = 30ksi; Sm = 18.3 ksi
SA-533B: u = 80 ksi; y = 50ksi; Sm = 26.7 ksi
SA-517F: u = 115 ksi; y = 100ksi; Sm = 38.3 ksi
Material Sphere (d/t=10) Cylinder (d/t=10)

pb pd SF pb pd SF
304SS 19.85 7.28 2.73 10.59 3.64 2.91
SA-516 18.30 6.65 2.49 9.15 3.23 2.75
SA-533B 26.10 9.70 2.69 14.70 4.85 3.03
SA-517F 38.90 13.92 2.79 22.10 6.96 3.17
Here: pb = Burst pressure; pd = Design Pressure; SF = pb/pd
8.0 Allowable limits for Service loads
The limits discussed in section 6.0 are for design conditions. Section III identifies six set of
service conditions with different probability of occurrence. A summary of allowable stress limits
for different service levels is provided below. The provisions of in-elastic analysis (NB-3228)
may provide relief from certain of these stress limits if plastic analysis techniques are applied.
______________________________________________________________________________
Pm PL PL+Pb PL+Pb+Q PL+Pb+Q+F
Design 1.0 Sm 1.5 Sm 1.5 Sm NA NA

Level A - - - 3.0 Sm Salt
Level B 1.1 Sm 1.65 Sm 1.65 Sm 3.0 Sm Salt
Level C 1.2 Sm or Sy 1.8 Sm or 1.5 Sy same as PL - -
Level D 2.4 Sm or 0.7Su 150% of Pm 150% of Pm - -
For hydrotest:
Pm < 0.9 Sy
Pm + Pb < 1.35 Sy [for Pm < 0.67 Sy]
Pm + Pb < 2.15 Sy - 1.2 Pm [for Pm < 0.67 Sy]
External pressure < 135% of the Permissible Buckling Pressure (NB-3133)
9.0 Protection against Buckling (NB-3133)
The design rules to ensure protection against buckling for Class 1 components are provided in
NB-3133. These paragraphs address the allowable external pressure in cylindrical and spherical
shells (with or without stiffening ring), and tubular products consisting of pipes, tubes and
fittings. Rules are also provided for cylindrical shells under longitudinal compressive stress. The
design procedure involves determination of Factor A and Factor B from the charts provided in
Section II, Part D. Factor A is basically a strain factor and depends on geometry. Factor B is a
stress factor that depends on material and temperature. Once Factor B is known, the allowable
external pressure is calculated from the equations provided in NB-3133. The design margin
against circumferential buckling is 3 in NB.
10.0 Protection against Non-ductile fracture
The concern arising from brittle fracture is addressed mainly through material toughness
requirements but includes some simplified analyses such as those presented in Appendix G.
These aspects will be discussed in detail in a separate chapter.
*****************************************************************************
Chapter-3
Design by Analysis procedures & Stress

linearization schemes in Section III
Dr. I. A. Khan,
Tel-25593554
Chapter 3: Design by Analysis procedures & Stress linearization schemes in Section III
______________________________________________________________________________
1.0 Introduction
Stress classification and categorisation is an essential pre-requisite for design by analysis (DBA).
A calculated value of stress means little until it is associated with its location and distribution in
the component and with the type of loading that produced it. Different types of stresses have
different degrees of significance and, therefore, different allowable limits are required for
different stress categories. For example, the average hoop stress through the thickness of the wall
of a vessel due to internal pressure must be held to a lower value than the stress at the root of a
notch in the wall. This is simply because of the fact that in the later case this stress would be
highly localized. Likewise, a thermal stress can often be allowed to reach a higher value than one
which is produced by dead weight or pressure. The designer must familiarize himself with the
various types of stress and loadings in order to accurately apply the results of analysis. In
addition, he should also consider some adequate and proper yield criterion in order to define how
the various stresses in a component react (i.e. to include the effect of multi-axial state of stress).
The main concern in elastic route is stress linearization and categorisation. Elastic analysis on its
own cannot characterize the nature of the stress.
In general, stress classification is defined by the type of loading which produce it, its location,
distribution and its significance i.e. the hazard it represents to the component. As far as DBA is
concerned, stresses are usually classified into three types:
1. Primary Stress
a. General Primary membrane Pm
b. Primary bending Pb
c. Local Primary membrane PL
2. Secondary Stress
a. Secondary membrane Qm
b. Secondary bending Qb
3. Peak Stress, F
2.0 Classification of Finite Element Stresses According to ASME Sec. III Stress Categories
A key problem in engineering application of DBA approach is how to classify a total stress field,
obtained by the finite element analysis, into different stress categories defined in the ASME
Code III and VIII-2. When the DBA procedure was introduced, the dominant analysis technique
in pressure vessel design was thin shell discontinuity analysis. Inherent in this understanding is
the assumption that membrane and bending stress act on a plane under the Kirchhoff‘s
hypothesis that plane section remains plane during bending. Various categories of stresses i.e.
membrane, bending and peak stresses (note that shell type membrane and bending stresses cause
gross distortions under primary loads and strain enhancement under secondary loads) required
for comparison against allowable stresses could be calculated directly from the interaction
forces. By now, analysis techniques have developed significantly and these classical methods are
______________________________________________________________________________
getting replaced more and more by computer based numerical methods. The most widely used
technique in contemporary pressure vessel design is the finite element method. However, when
using the finite element method of analysis it is the total stress that is obtained from the solution.
Difficulties arise when thin shell analysis is not used and the finite element analysis is based on
axi-symmetric or 3-D solid elements. In general, unless the section is indeed thin, the stresses
across the thickness are not linear and further plane sections do not remain plane during bending.
It therefore becomes difficult to equate the calculated stresses and the code categories unless the
design is based on shell analysis. Over the years it has become common practice to linearise the
elastically calculated through thickness stresses in order to separate membrane, bending and peak
components. The concept of ‗‗equivalent linearised stress‘‘ was initiated by ASME Code III and
first applied in 2-D finite element analysis by Kroenke et al. [1–2]. Procedures for linearization
of stresses in three-dimensional geometries were discussed in a series of papers by Hollinger and
Hechmer [4–6]. Recently several alternative methods of stress classification, e.g., the reduced
modulus method [7], the spring effect factor method [8], the lower-bound theorem approach [9],
the GLOSS R-node method [10], the elastic compensation method [11,12] etc have been
proposed. However, Kroenke's procedure which is the earliest stress linearization method and a
more refined version by Gordon are still the most widely used techniques for stress linearisation.
Fig. 1(a): Stress from shell interaction analysis & 1(b) Stress from FEM analysis
______________________________________________________________________________
3.0 Guidelines related to selection of stress classification planes/lines
The first step in the classification of stresses resulting from an axi-symmetric or 3-D finite
element analysis is to calculate the stresses on a desired plane. The plane is represented by a line
in the cross section being modeled and is called a ―stress classification line‖. The stress line is
described either by two nodes on opposite surfaces of the vessel or by the coordinates of two
such points. In making the required FEA it is necessary to locate stress lines at critical locations
in the vessel. Pressure vessels usually contain structural discontinuity regions where abrupt
changes in geometry, material or loading occur. These regions are typically the locations of
highest stress in a component. For the evaluation of failure modes of plastic collapse and
ratcheting, Stress Classification Lines (SCLs) are typically located at gross structural
discontinuities. For the evaluation of local failure and fatigue, SCLs are typically located at local
structural discontinuities. For SCLs that span a material discontinuity (e.g. base metal with
cladding), the SCL should include all materials and associated loadings. If one of the materials,
such as cladding, is neglected for strength calculations, then only the base metal thickness should
be used to calculate the membrane and bending stresses from the linearized forces and moments
across the full section for the evaluation of plastic collapse.
(a) (b)
Fig. 2: Stress classification line for (a) 3-D model and (b) 2-D axi-symmetric
model.
Selection of line orientation with respect to vessel is also important because the values of
classified stresses are a function of line orientation. Consequently, it is mandatory to choose an
______________________________________________________________________________
orientation which gives a correct indication of the stress picture as related to the allowable
stresses. SCLs should be oriented normal to contour lines of the stress component of highest
magnitude. However, as this may be difficult to implement, similar accuracy can be obtained by
orienting the SCL normal to the mid-surface of the cross section as shown in Fig 3.
Since the limits on primary stresses and primary plus secondary stresses have been obtained for
linear elastic bending stress distribution, a plane which gives basically a linear bending
meridional and tangential stress distribution has
the best orientation. Choosing a bending plane
usually corresponds to selecting a line
approximately normal to the neutral axis and
vessel surface. This orientation minimizes
problems with shear stresses since they will be
approximately zero at the ends of the line. The
shear stress distribution along an SCL will
approximate a parabolic distribution only when
the inner and outer surfaces are parallel and the
SCL is normal to the surfaces. If the surfaces are
not parallel or an SCL is not normal to the
surfaces, the appropriate shear distribution will Fig. 3: Selection of stress classification line
not be obtained. However, if the magnitude of at structural discontinuity
shear stress is small as compared to the hoop or meridional stresses, this orientation criterion can
be waived. When the shear stress distribution is approximately linear, the shear stress is likely to
be significant. For pressure boundary components, the hoop or meridional stresses typically are
the largest magnitude component stresses and are the dominant terms in the equivalent stress.
Typically the hoop or meridional stresses deviate
from a monotonically increasing or decreasing
trend along an SCL if the SCL is skewed with
respect to the interior, exterior, or mid surfaces
(see Fig. 4). For most pressure vessel
applications, the hoop or meridional stresses due
to pressure should be nearly linear.
For each analysis examination of several lines at
different locations and orientations is an integral
part of stress classification procedure. In order to
calculate stresses comparable to primary stress
limits a stress analysis with pressure loading only
is performed. In order to meet primary plus
secondary and peak limits, a thermal analysis is Fig.4: Hoop and meridional stress
required first to find the critical times during the distribution
______________________________________________________________________________
transient. Stress analyses are then performed to obtain the desired primary plus secondary and
peak stress.
4.0 Stress linearisation Procedure
A technique for stress linearisation was first suggested by Kroenke and has been adopted in
several finite element postprocessors. The actual classification for a 2-D state of stress is done in
three steps. First, the stress components are calculated on any desired plane. Second, total stress
is divided into membrane, bending and peak and labeled primary, secondary or peak according to
location, origin and type as discussed earlier. Finally having classified the components, the
principal stresses and stress intensities are calculated.
Outside of gross structural discontinuity regions this stress line is normal to the wall mean
surface i.e. its length is equal to the thickness of the wall in the analysis. Stresses in the global
coordinate directions are calculated at evenly spaced points along the stress line by extrapolation
or interpolation using a plane. The plane is established by a least square fit of the surrounding
element centroidal stresses. The final step in the preparation of stresses for classification is to
rotate them to a local coordinate system which is parallel and perpendicular to the stress line.
Having stresses on any desired plane in the vessel, the next step is to divide total finite element
stresses into membrane, bending and peak categories. Using the basic definitions, evaluation of
membrane, bending and peak stresses for normal stresses is a bit straightforward. If x3 measures
local distance along the classification line then the equivalent linearised stress is
 
ij L  ax3  b
Membrane stress component is given by the formula
1 e/ 2
 ij m  b  e   ij dx3
e / 2
The bending stress component is given by
12 x3 e / 2
 
ij b  ax3  3   ij x3dx3
e e / 2
The maximum and minimum bending stresses can then be evaluated, at x3  e / 2
______________________________________________________________________________
6 e/ 2
 
ij b,max  ae / 2  2   ij x3dx3
e e / 2
       
ij L ij m ij b
The peak value of stress at a point is the difference between the total stress and the sum of the
membrane and bending stresses.
                 
ij p ij ij L ij ij m ij b
However, analysis of shear stresses requires special consideration. For shear stresses, the
membrane portion is defined and calculated the same as the normal membrane stress. Bending
portion of shear stress is not calculated. The peak stress is set equal to the total stress minus
membrane stress. These procedures are essentially dictated by the lack of procedure for
linearising shear stress. In accordance with ASME section III, average shear stress is placed in
either Pm, PL or Qm category. Since no stable method exists for separating peak shear stress from
the total, no portion of shear stress is isolated for placement into Pb or Qb categories.
Consequently, the shear in the combined categories P L + Pb or PL + Pb + Q is equal to the average
shear for pressure loading and equal to zero for pressure plus thermal loading. If the stress line is
approximately normal to the surface, the shear is near zero and using zero surface shear stress for
primary plus secondary stress is accurate. Special consideration is required in areas where the
stress line is severely skewed to the boundary.
Fig. 6: Linearisation of finite element

analysis [14].
______________________________________________________________________________
4.1 Stress Linearization Procedure for Shell elements
Stress results derived from a finite element analysis utilizing two-dimensional or three-
dimensional shells are obtained directly from the analysis results. Using the component stresses,
the equivalent stress shall be computed. The method to derive the membrane, bending, and peak
components of a stress distribution is shown below:
a) The membrane stress tensor is the tensor comprised of the average of each stress component
along the stress classification line, or:
 ijin   ijout
 m
ij
2
b) The bending stress tensor is the tensor comprised of the linear varying portion of each stress
component along the stress classification line, or:
 ijout   ijin
 
b
ij
2
c) The peak stress tensor is the tensor whose components are equal to:
 ijF   ijm   ijb   K f  1
Example 1: Stress Classification at a Shell-Nozzle Junction
In order to demonstrate the stress classification procedure (as described by Kroenke‘s method)
stresses at shell-nozzle junctions are considered. The nozzle geometry and location of stress lines
1-6 are shown in Fig. 8.
Stress contours for tangential stresses are shown in Fig.9. S R is normal stress parallel to stress
line, SL is perpendicular to line, ST is tangential stress and SRL is the shear stress. Only primary
and primary plus secondary categories will be considered since primary plus secondary plus peak
is the total stress which can be read directly from finite element stress output. In accordance with
previous discussions lines 2-6 in Fig.8 are as normal to both surfaces and the neutral axis as
possible. Line1 in Fig.8 is perpendicular to the surface at the inside but nearly tangent to the
surface at outside. Lines 2-6 are placed at locations and orientations which are believed at the
outset to the bending planes which will provide maximum bending stresses.
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 8: Selection of stress classification line on shell nozzle junction

[1].
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 9: Tangential stress contours at Shell-nozzle junction [1].
After stress evaluation, applicability of original stress line must be considered. Investigation of
Fig.9 shows that line 3 is located through the most severe tangential bending and nearly passes
through the maximum tangential stress on the inside surface. Investigation of total stress plots for
line 1 reveals that SL and ST are not linear bending distributions and that S RL does not have the
parabolic shape characteristic of a bending distribution. Consequently, line 1 would be discarded
as an invalid stress line. The poor results at line 1 could have been predicted from its relation to
the outside surface. It is interesting to note that line 1 would be a typical location and orientation
for satisfying stress limits using an interaction analysis. Due to the assumptions made and the
model used in a shell solution, line 1 would represent a bending plane. However, it is not a
bending plane in the finite element solution. Lines 2-6 all exhibit the desired bending stress
______________________________________________________________________________
distribution on a stress line. Line 6 passes through the maximum total meridional stress that
exists on the outside surface. Investigation of the stress results show that using additional stress
lines out into the nozzle and down into the shell provide smaller stress intensities.
SR/P
SL/P
ST/P
SRL/P
Fig.10: Stress profile along Stress classification line no.3 [1].
______________________________________________________________________________
Example 2: Stress Classification at Shell Nozzle Interface Due to Radial Upward Pull at
Nozzle End
Analytical Solution [4]
The largest stress in the shell occurs in the tangential direction at the merging point of shell and
nozzle.
The parameters of interest are

 = R/t
= 1950/150 =13
= 0.875ro/R
= 0.072
The tangential stress can be expressed as
S t  N / t  6M / t 2
or
S t  ( F / t 2 )N / F / R    6M / F  
Where F= Radial pull
Fig. 11: Stress intensity contour for radial

Let pull.
C F  N / F / R    6M / F   For + F
C ' F   N /F / R   6M / F   For – F
Adding and subtracting we get
C F  C F'
N ( F / R)
2
C  C F'
6M  F F
2
Values of CF and CF΄ can be obtained from Bijlaard curves [4].
______________________________________________________________________________
Thus F = P*A
=1*(ro2 – ri2)
=1*(162.52 – 137.52) = 23561.945 N
From Bijlaard curves CF =1.6 and CF΄ =1.2

Therefore,
N= 31.42 and M= 5497.78
Thus,
Membrane stress Sm = N/t = 0.2094
Bending stress Sb = 6M/t2 = 1.466
FEM Solution
The variation of tangential stress calculated from FEM along the thickness near shell nozzle
merger line as shown in Fig. 12, is shown in the following table.
Table1: Variation of tangential stress along shell thickness.

Nodal distance 0 19.7576 39.515 67.219 94.923 122.628 150
(mm)
Stress (MPa) -1.259 -0.8537 -0.4834 .0061 0.5056 1.0629 2.1327
Membrane stress can be

calculated as
1t
Sm    dy
t0
Bending stress is expressed as
t
2
6
Sb 
t2   ydy
t

2
Fig. 12: Variation of tangential stress along shell

thickness
Calculated value of membrane and bending stresses are as follows
Sm = 0.2024 MPa
Sb = 1.5088 MPa
______________________________________________________________________________
Example 3: Stress Classification at Salient Points in a Pressure Vessel
Fig. 13: Salient locations in a pressure vessel for stress classification

[1].
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2: Stress classification and categorisation as per ASME Section NB-3200 (Design by
Analysis)
Location of Origin of Stress Type of Stress

Stress Stress Comp. Stress Category Reason
Membrane Pm Required for equilibrium
Cylindrical / Radial Bending Q Self limiting
spherical Membrane Pm Required for equilibrium
vessel away Meridional Bending Q Self limiting
from Pressure Membrane Pm Required for equilibrium
discontinuities. Tangential Bending Q Self limiting
Shear - none Does not exist
(Section 1 in
Fig. 13)
Membrane Pm Required for equilibrium
Formed and Radial Bending Pb Self limiting
flat heads Membrane Pm Required for equilibrium
other than Pressure Meridional Bending Pb Self limiting
spherical Membrane Pm Required for equilibrium
remote from Tangential Bending Pb Self limiting
discontinuities. Shear Membrane Pm Required for equilibrium
(Section 2 in
Fig. 13)
Pl Lead to large deflection
Radial Membrane but self-limiting
Bending Q Self limiting
Pressure Membrane Pl Lead to large deflection
Meridional but self-limiting
Main vessel at Bending Q Self limiting
discontinuity Membrane Pl Lead to large deflection
but not Tangential but self-limiting
through stress Bending Q Self limiting
concentration Shear Membrane Pl Lead to large deflection
but self-limiting
(Section 3 in
Fig. 13)
Support skirt All Total Q Stress caused by motion

but not Pressure components of main vessel
through stress
concentration
(Section 4 in
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 13)
Membrane Pl Lead to large deflection
Radial but self-limiting
Meridional but self-limiting
Line through Peak F No noticeable distortion
stress Membrane Pl Lead to large deflection
concentration Tangential but self-limiting
at vessel Pressure Bending Q Self limiting
discontinuity Peak F No noticeable distortion
(Section 5 in Shear but self-limiting
Fig. 13) Bending F No method for isolation
Peak F No noticeable distortion
Q Stress caused by motion
Radial Total of main vessel
Membrane Q Stress caused by motion
Meridional + Bending of main vessel
Line through Peak F No noticeable distortion
stress Membrane Q Stress caused by motion
concentration Tangential + Bending of main vessel
and included Peak F No noticeable distortion
in support skirt Pressure Membrane Q Stress caused by motion
metal Shear of main vessel
Bending F No method for isolation
(Section 6 in Peak F No noticeable distortion
Fig. 13)
Radial Total Pl + Pb +Q No necessity to separate
Membrane Pl + Pb +Q No necessity to separate

Meridional + Bending
Membrane Pl + Pb +Q No necessity to separate
Tangential + Bending
Any of the Pressure + Peak F No noticeable distortion
preceding Thermal Membrane Pl + Pb +Q No necessity to separate
locations Shear Bending F No method for isolation
______________________________________________________________________________
5.0 Problems with Stress Classification
1. Shear Stress: An unresolved problem with shear stress exists in that no method has been
found for isolating peak shear stress. The problem is less when the stress line is nearly
perpendicular to the surface. No problem exists for fatigue analysis since total stresses are
used.
2. Radial Stress: Situations occur where radial stresses are concentrated. Since there is no
moment associated with radial stress an equivalent linear stress can not be calculated as is
done with meridional and tangential stress. Consequently, as with shear stress, no
straightforward method exists for separating peak radial stress.
3. Line Orientation: Since an infinite number of stress lines can emanate from a vessel
fillet, choice of the correct one is left to the engineer‘s judgment. Selecting the most
appropriate failure plane is a perplexing problem even after the stress distributions are
known. Ideally inner, outer surfaces and thus the mid-surface should be parallel, with the
stress classification line perpendicular to these surfaces.
4. Three Dimensional stress analyses: 3-D finite element analysis with solid element
poses a significant problem for stress linearization. In 3-D analysis it is necessary to find
a consistent stress classification plane which again could cause problems near the very
features the designer is concerned with (fillets and gross structural discontinuities).
5. Stress categorization: Several situations occur where it is impossible to separate stresses
according to stress origin. For example a vessel loaded by pressure and a nonlinear
temperature distribution has a nonlinear tangential stress distribution. Section III allows
the nonlinear thermal stress to be classified as peak stress, but the nonlinear portion of
stress due to pressure is classified as secondary. In such cases it becomes necessary to
perform two separate finite element analysis in order to separate pressure stress from
thermal stress.
6.0 Recent developments in the area of Stress Classification
In 2010 edition of section VIII Div.2 a new method known as "Structural stress method based on
nodal forces" has been suggested as an alternative method for stress linearisation. Stress results
derived from a finite element analysis utilizing continuum or shell elements may be processed
using the Structural Stress Method based on nodal forces. The mesh-insensitive structural stress
method provides a robust procedure for capturing the membrane and bending stresses and can be
directly utilized in fatigue design of welded joints.
7.0 Guidelines on Stress Categorisation
This relates to the use of finite element method (FEM) in pressure vessel design by analysis. It
has been observed that the use of elastic finite element analysis in many cases may lead to
ambiguities in stress categorization. How to identify primary stress is the most significant, but
difficult, problem of stress categorisation. Mistaking primary stress for secondary stress will
result in serious consequences. For example it is impossible to separate stresses according to
______________________________________________________________________________
stress origin that occurs in a flat head. The part of bending stress resulting from pressure is
primary bending. If the flat head is designed as simply supported plate, the part of bending stress
resulting from interaction moments at the edge of plate is secondary stress. These stresses can
not be separated in a finite element run. In order to overcome these ambiguities P m and Pb
stresses should be evaluated using general equilibrium considerations. FEA is appropriate for
calculation of (P + Q) and (P + Q + F) stresses in general. It is only in complex components that
where basic structural analysis does not exist that FEA is recommended as appropriate for P m
and Pm + Pb stress evaluation. The thrust is that the designer should apply his ingenuity to
calculate equilibrium stresses, not merely extract stresses from a general finite element model.
This is especially true for three-dimensional stress fields. Application of the limit load or elastic-
plastic analysis methods is recommended for cases where the categorization process may
produce ambiguous results. Some examples indicating the salient aspects related to stress
categorisation are provided here.
Example 1: Clamped Circular plate
We consider here the case of a clamped circular plate loaded by a uniformly distributed load q as
shown in Fig. 14. From elastic plate theory, the radial bending moments at centre A and edge B
for a simply supported plate are
3  2
M AS  qa M BS  0
16 (1)
and for a clamped circular plate are
1  2 1
M AC  qa M BC   qa2
16 8 (2)
Fig. 14: (a) Clamped circular plate and (b) simply supported circular plate
loaded by a uniformly distributed load q [17].
The elastically calculated stresses can be categorised in several ways; (1) The first option is to
consider the bending stresses at the edge due to MBC and at the centre due to MAC as primary
stresses. In this case, secondary stress is equal to zero. (2) the second reasonable option is to
______________________________________________________________________________
classify the bending stress at the edge due to MBC as secondary stress and to take the simply
supported circular plate, in which the rotation constraint causing MBC is removed, as the
reference structure. In this case, the maximum primary stress is the bending stress of MAC at the
center of the simply supported plate. (3) Finally, we consider only the total stress field of original
clamped circular plate and classify bending stress at the centre due to MAC as maximum primary
stress and bending stress at the edge due to MBC as secondary stress. It is obvious that the first
stress categorisation scheme is reasonable and optimal; the second one is reasonable, but
conservative; the final one is unsafe and unreasonable, the maximum primary stress that is the
bending stress due to MAC, is estimated lower due to the favorable effect of MBC.
Example 2: Cylindrical Vessel with a circular plate head
We consider here a cylindrical vessel with a circular plate head and loaded with internal pressure
as shown in Fig. 15. Again several options are available for stress categorisation. (1) Consider
the structure shown in Fig. 15 (a) as the reference structure. All membrane and linearised
bending stresses in plate and vessel are primary stresses and should be evaluated by 1.5 Sm limit.
(2) Classify the bending stress at connection B as secondary stress. Removing the rotation
Fig. 15: Cylindrical vessel with a circular plate head under internal pressure [17].
constraint and radial displacement constraint at B, take the reference structure as a cylindrical
vessel in membrane stress state together with a simply supported circular plate as shown in Fig.
15(b). In this case, only axial force N at B occurs. (3) Classify the bending stress at connection B
as secondary stress. Removing only the rotation constraint at B, the reference structure is shown
in Fig. 15(c). In this case, in addition to axial force N, a lateral shear force Q occurs due to the
radial displacement constraint. Comparing three schemes, the usually adopted scheme 2 is the
______________________________________________________________________________
best one for cylindrical vessel, because the maximum primary stress in vessel is the lowest, but
in circular plate is the highest. The connection B is a favorable constraint for the plate, but
unfavorable for vessel. If the designer wants to reducethe thickness of plate head due to
difficulties associated with the availability of plate having high thickness, then scheme 1 is the
best one. Scheme 3 is an intermediate one. If any one of the three schemes can satisfy all limits
of stress intensity specified in ASME Code, the design is surely acceptable. Besides these three
options there are other possible ways of stress categorisation that would be unsafe and
unreasonable. Two such schemes are as follows:
(1) Consider only the original structure. Classify the bending stress at B as secondary stress,
because it is caused by a redundant rotational constraint, and take the bending stress at center A
as the maximum primary stress of circular plate. If the bending stress of 3.0 Sm, which is
favorable for vessel, is allowed, the maximum primary stress in circular plate will be estimated
lower. (2) Classify the bending stress at B as secondary stress, and take the primary structure as a
cylindrical vessel in membrane stress state together with a clamped circular plate. In this case, an
originally non-existing favorable constraint, clamped boundary condition, is imposed on the
circular plate. The maximum primary stress in plate is estimated lower than in unsafe case 1,
because the calculated bending stress of clamped circular plate at center A is less than one in
case 1.
Example 3: Cylindrical nozzle and conical vessel junction
The third example is a junction of cylindrical nozzle and conical vessel under internal pressure,
e.g., the small joint of a conical reducer, as shown in Fig. 16.
Fig. 16: Cylindrical nozzle and conical vessel junction under

internal pressure p [17].
______________________________________________________________________________
There are three reasonable schemes for stress categorisation: (1) Assume the cylindrical nozzle is
in membrane stress state. As per the equilibrium condition at connection B, the connection force
T1 acting on conical vessel has to be vertically upward, as shown in Fig. 16 (a). Force N1 is the
membrane solution of conical vessel under internal pressure. Resolving N1 in the radial direction
of parallel circle and in the meridian direction of nozzle, we get Q1 and T1. All membrane
solutions in vessel and nozzle are general primary membrane stress. Force Q1 results in local
primary membrane stress and primary bending stress in the conical vessel. (2) Assume the
conical vessel is in membrane stress state. Now the connection force T2 acting on cylindrical
nozzle has to be in the meridian direction of conical vessel as shown in Fig. 16 (b). Decomposing
T2 in horizontal and vertical directions, we get Q2 and N2. Force N2 is the membrane solution of
cylindrical nozzle under internal pressure. All membrane solutions in vessel and nozzle is
general primary membrane stress. Force Q2 results in local primary membrane stress and primary
bending stress in the nozzle. (3) Take the original structure as a reference structure. In this case,
there exist general, local primary membrane stress and primary bending stress in both conical
vessel and cylindrical nozzle. Comparing the three schemes, Scheme 2 is the most favorable for
conical vessel and scheme 1 is the most favorable for cylindrical nozzle, but needs a thicker
conical vessel.
It should be pointed out that both membrane states of cylindrical nozzle and of conical vessel
together cannot be considered a reasonable reference structure, because the membrane force T1
of cylindrical nozzle and T2 of conical vessel cannot satisfy the equilibrium condition at
connection B. It means that the local primary membrane stress and primary bending stress at
connection B are really necessary to equilibrate internal pressure.
8.0 References
1. Kroenke, W.C., 1974, ‗‗Classification of Finite Element 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. Kroenke, W. C., et al., 1985, ‗‗Component Evaluation Using the Finite Element Method,‘‘
Pressure Vessel and Piping Technology—1985—A Decade of Progress, ASME.
4. Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., 1987, ‗‗Three-Dimensional Stress Criteria—
Application of Code Rules,‘‘ ASME PVP-Vol. 120.
5. Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., 1989, ‗‗Code Evaluation of 3-D Stresses on a Plane,‘‘
ASME PVP-Vol. 161.
6. Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., 1991, ‗‗The ASME Code and 3-D Stress Evaluation,‘‘
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 113, pp. 481–487.
7. Dhalla, A. K., 1984, ‗‗Verification of an Elastic Procedure to Estimate Follow-up,‘‘ ASME
PVP-Vol. 86, pp. 81–96.
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Roche, R. L., 1987, ‗‗Modes of Failure—Primary and Secondary Stresses‘‘, ASME PVP-
Vol. 120.
9. Marriott, D. L., 1988, ‗‗Evaluation of Deformation or Load Control of Stresses Under
Inelastic Conditions Using Finite Element Stress Analysis,‘‘ ASME PVP-Vol. 136, pp. 3–9.
10. Seshadri, R., and Fernando, C. P. D., 1991, ‗‗Limit Loads of Mechanical Components and
Structures Using the GLOSS R-Node Method,‘‘ ASME PVP Vol. 210-2, pp. 125–134.
11. Mackenzie, D., and Boyle, J. T., 1992, ‗‗Assessment of Classification Procedures for Finite
Element Stresses,‘‘ Proceedings, 7th International Conference of Pressure Vessel
Technology, Part 1, pp. 346–358.
12. Mackenzie, D., and Boyle, J. T., 1994, ‗‗A Computational Procedure for Calculating Primary
Stress for the ASME B&PV Code,‘‘ ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 116, pp. 339–344.
13. Dhalla, A. K., 1991, ‗‗Stress Classification for Elevated Temperature Service,‘‘ ASME J.
Pressure Vessel Technol., 113, pp. 488–496
14. Design by Analysis: Proposal of CEN‘s unfired pressure vessel standard prEN 13445-3,
Annex B and Annex C.
15. ASME Boiler And Pressure Vessel Code, 2001, Section- III, Subsection NB
16. Pressure Vessel Design Hand Book, Henry H. Bednar, P.E, 1987 Edition
17. Lu, M.W., Chen, Y., Li, G.J., "Two-step approach of stress classification and primary
structure method", ASME J. Pressure Vessel Tech., 122, pp. 2–8.
*****************************************************************************
Chapter-4
Elastic-plastic behavior and limit load

analysis of pressure vessels: theory and
analysis procedures
Mahendra Kumar Samal

Reactor Safety Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay,
Mumbai-400085, India
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Chapter 4: Elastic-plastic behavior & limit load analysis of pressure vessels: theory and analysis procedures
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
In this chapter, the importance of elastic-plastic stress analysis in engineering problems as

applied to analysis of nuclear pressure vessel and piping components are discussed first so
that the analysts understands the situations in which to invoke the provisions of nonlinear
analysis in in-house as well as commercial codes. The various types of nonlinear problems
such as geometric, material and contact nonlinearities are described with adequate number of
examples. Simple one-dimensional systems are presented with both their linear and nonlinear
solutions in order to realize the inadequacy of the linear solutions for various loading and
geometry parameters.
The problem of buckling is an important issue in design of various components in industry. It

was shown that the elastic instability problems can be formulated only through a nonlinear
setting of FE analysis. The methods of obtaining critical buckling load for simple beam-
column systems were presented. The classical solutions were compared with FE solutions.
For the material nonlinear problem, different sources of origin of nonlinearity were described.
The basics of yielding of material and subsequent hardening algorithms were discussed. For
evaluation of limit load of nuclear pressure vessel and piping components, the concept of
twice elastic slope method and other criteria are discussed and suitable problems have been
solved in order to demonstrate the methodology as applied in industry.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1 Introduction
Practically, most of the problems in nature are nonlinear. However, the interest of the
engineer lies in finding a solution, which is accurate enough in the range of his interest. Many
times, the solution of the problem lies in the linear range for small values of imposed field
variables. However, the problem becomes nonlinear if the matrices and vectors those appear
in the FE algebraic equations are functions of the solution vector.
For example, nonlinearity in structural problems can be classified as geometric and material
nonlinearity. Geometric nonlinearity is associated with dependence of the stiffness matrix on
the change in configuration as in large deflection of slender elastic beams. Material
nonlinearity is associated with changes in material property as in the case of elasto-plasticity,
creep and damage mechanics. In heat transfer, nonlinearity may arise from temperature
dependent conductivity and radiative heat transfer (radiative heat flux varies nonlinearly with
temperature).
Many physical situations present nonlinearities too large to be ignored. Stress-strain relations
may be nonlinear either in a time dependent (creep) or a time independent way (elasto-
plasticity). A change in configuration may cause loads to alter their distribution and
magnitude or cause gaps to open or close. Mating parts may stick or slip. Welding and
casting processes cause the material to change in conductivity, modulus and phase.
The generation and shedding of vertices in fluid flow past a structure produces oscillatory
loads on the structure. Pre-buckling rotations alter the effective stiffness of a shell and change
its buckling load. The effect of nonlinearity on structural response may vary in type and may
be mild or severe. The analyst must understand the physical problem and must be acquainted
with various solution strategies. A single strategy will not work always and may not work for
some of the problems. Several attempts may be needed in order to obtain a satisfactory result.
However, many analysts are doing nonlinear analysis now-a-days compared to earlier days
mainly because of availability of fast computers and algorithms and at a low cost. The
functional requirements for the structures are also increasing day by day.
4.2 Elastic-plastic material behavior used in design of pressure vessels
In order to understand the elastic-plastic behavior of pressure vessels and piping components
under different loading conditions, it is essential to understand the material deformation
behavior under tension. If we take a prismatic bar and load in tension, the load-displacement
curve as observed from the machine data can be typically represented in Fig. 4.1. The
different regions of deformation including elastic deformation, onset of plastic yielding,
plastic hardening and plastic instability points are shown in Fig. 4.1.
Generally, by linear elastic we understand that stress is proportional to strain (Fig. 4.2). As
stress is related to force, and displacement is related to strain then these are also proportional
to each other. Therefore, if the stresses are known for a particular load value, they can then be
calculated for any other load using simple proportionality.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
For a component under the action of a number of loads the combined effect of the loads may
be calculated through a separate analysis. This is applicable only for cases where the stresses
remain elastic and the analysis is based on small deformation theory. The stress field results
from the individual analysis are then added together to obtain the resultant stress field
corresponding to the case when the loads are acting together.
Fig. 4.1: Load-displacement curve of a prismatic bar loaded in tension
Fig. 4.2: Elastic material model
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A useful aspect of linear elastic analysis is that it allows the use of the superposition
principle.
Linear-elastic plastic analysis
Plasticity can be defined as that property which enables a material to be deformed

continuously and permanently without rupture during the application of stresses exceeding
those necessary to cause yielding of the material.
Fig. 4.3: Linear-elastic plastic material model, unloading after some plastic deformation
In linear-elastic plastic analysis the stresses are proportional to strain only up to the yield
point of the material. Beyond the yield point this no longer applies and plasticity effects need
to be considered. At this stage the material exhibits non-linear strain hardening and
permanent deformations take place. When the load is removed the unloading is assumed to
take place linearly, parallel to the loading line (Fig. 4.3).
Generally the plastic response is conveniently simplified using idealized models. The most
commonly used models are the bilinear hardening model and the perfect plastic model. Both
are described below.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Bilinear hardening
The material is assumed to be linear elastic up to yield. Beyond yield the material exhibits
linear plastic deformation (Fig. 4.4).
Perfect plasticity
The material is assumed to be linear elastic up to yield. Beyond yield there is unlimited
plastic flow and no further increase in stress takes place. It may be argued that this highly
idealized model may seem unrealistic. However it is regarded by most pressure vessel code
committees as a useful conservative model for design purposes (Fig. 4.5).
Fig. 4.4: Elastic-bilinear hardening plasticity material models
Fig. 4.5: Elastic-perfect plasticity material models
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4.2.1 Yield conditions for isotropic materials
The yield condition is in general written as f    0 . This defined the stress states for which
the material exhibits plastic flow. The set of stress states that satisfy the yield condition forms
the so-called yield surface in the stress space. The sign of the expression defining the yield
function can always be selected such that f    0 corresponds to the elastic stress states,
f    0 corresponds to plastic stress states, and stress states for which f    0 cannot be
supported by the materials.
All the stress states for which f    0 , are called plastically admissible. The decision as to
whether the material is yielding or not must be independent of the particular coordinate
system in which we perform our calculations. Since, for isotropic materials, we have no
orientation effect, a yield condition must depend only on the invariants of the stress tensor.
The convenient set f stress invariants consist of the following members, i.e., I1, J 2 and J3 .
These are expressed as below.
I1   ii (1)
1
J2  sij sij (2)
2
J 3  det  sij  (3)
where  ij is the stress tensor and sij is the deviatoric part of stress tesnor. In terms of these
invariants, the yield condition can be written as
f  I1 , J 2 , J 3   0 (4)
There are several yield criteria proposed in literature, some of which are discussed below.
4.2.2 Von Mises criterion for yielding
In ductile materials such as metals, inelastic deformation typically takes place by plastic slip
along the crystallographic planes. The onset of yielding in this case does not depend upon the
volumetric part of the stress tensor (i.e., on the pressure or mean stress). Such materials are
described by the yield conditions that are independent of the invariant I1 .
Fig. 4.6: von Mises (solid) and Tresca’s (dashed) yield surfaces. (a) tensile and
compressive meridians (b) deviatoric sections , (c) plane stress presentation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The simplest and most useful example is the yield condition of von Mises which is written as
f  J 2   J 2  0  0 (5)
in which  0 is a material parameter. The second invariant J 2 is non-negative and its square
root is real. This theory based on von Mises yield criteria is often referred as J 2 theory of
plasticity. The invariant J 2 is also proportional to the distortional strain energy and hence the
von Mises criterion is equivalent to the condition that the distortional strain energy at the
onset of yielding reaches a critical value.
It is customary to present the yield conditions graphically in the principal stress space
(Westergaard space) with axes 1, 2 and  3 . The line on which all the principal stresses are
equal is the hydrostatic stress, and planes perpendicular to this line are the deviatoric planes
(also called the  -planes). The intersections of the yield surface with the deviatoric planes
are deviatoric sections (or  -plane projections), and intersections with the planes that contain
the hydrostatic axis are called meridians. The geometrical interpretation of the von Mises
yield surface in terms of the Westergaard coordinates is shown in Fig. 4.19(b).
The von Mises yield surface condition means the material yields when the distance of the
corresponding stress point from the hydrostatic axis in the principal stress space reaches a
certain limit value, i.e., 0  2 0 . In the deviatoric plane, the points satisfying the yield
condition fill a circle. Since the hydrostatic component of stress has no effect on the
J 2 invariant, the yield surface corresponding to the von Mises yield criterion is a cylinder,
rotationally symmetric about the hydrostatic axis. Under plane stress condition,  3  0 and
hence the yield surface is described by the intersection of the cylinder with the  3  0 plane
and it gives rise to an ellipse as shown in Fig. 4.19(c).
4.2.3 Tresca’s criterion for yielding
Another simple and useful criterion is due to Tresca. According to this criterion, the material
starts to yield when the maximum shear stress reaches a certain limit value  0 . Since, among
planes of all orientations, there are six local maxima of the shear stress magnitude, the
Tresca‘s criteria requires that one of the six equalities be satisfied, i.e.,
1   2  3   1
  0 or 2   0 or 3   0 (6)
2 2 2
Thus the yield condition of Tresca may be written as
f 1 ,  2 ,  3   1   2   4 02   2   3   4 02   3  1   4 02   0
2 2 2
(7)
   
Of course, if the principal stresses are ordered such that 1   2   3 , then the Tresca
condition can be written simply as
1   3   2 0 (8)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Experimental results on yield condition on most metals lie between the criterion of Tresca
and von Mises, usually closer to the condition of von Mises. Under plane stress condition, the
six equations given by Equation [64] represent straight lines that pass through the points
 0 on the stress axes as shown in Fig. 4.19(c). There fire, the Tresca‘s condition is
represented by a hexagon that is inscribed in the von Mises ellipse. In the deviatoric plane,
the Tresca‘s yield surface is represented by a regular hexagon and in the principal stress
space, it is a regular hexahedral prism inscribed into the von Mises cylinder.
4.2.4 One dimensional elastic-plastic analysis
Materials for which permanent strains are developed upon unloading are called plastic
materials. Many materials such as metals, soils and concrete exhibit plastic behaviour upto a
stress called the yield strength. Once loaded beyond the initial yield strength, plastic strains
are developed. Elastic-plastic materials are further classified as rate-independent materials
where the stress is independent of the strain rate, and rate dependent materials in which the
stress depends on the strain rate. The later are also referred to as rate-sensitive materials.
The major ingredients of the theory of plasticity are:

1. A decomposition of each increment of strain into an elastic, reversible part d  e and an
irreversible plastic part d  p .
2. A yield function f  , q  which governs the onset and continuance of plastic deformation
where q are a set of internal variables.
3. A flow rule which governs the plastic flow, i.e., determined the plastic strain increments.
4. Evolution equations for internal variables, including strain hardening relation which
governs the evolution of the yield function.
Elastic-plastic laws are path-dependent and dissipative. A large part of the work expended in
plastically deforming the material is irreversibly converted into other forms of energy,
particularly heat. The stress depends upon the entire history of deformation and can not be
written as a single-valued function of strain, rather it can only be specified as a relation
between rates of stress and strain.
4.2.5 Rate independent plasticity in one dimension
A material is called nonlinear if the stresses   and strains   are related by a strain
dependent matrix rather than a matrix of constants. Thus the computational difficulty is that
equilibrium equations must be written using material properties that depend upon strains.
However, strains are not known in advance. Plastic flow is a cause of material nonlinearity.
In this section, the case of uniaxial stress is used to introduce the formulation and solution of
the elasto-plastic problems.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
When yielding has occurred, the strain increment can be regarded as composed of an elastic
contribution d  e and plastic contribution d  p . The stress increment d can be written as
d  E  d  d p  or d  Et d or d  Hd p where H is the strain hardening parameter
and Et is the tangent modulus of elasticity. The above expressions for d can be rearranged
to write Et as
 E 
Et  E 1   (9)
 EH 
Elasto-plastic analysis in multiaxial case requires a yield criterion, flow rule and a suitable
hardening rule as discussed previously. The yield criterion can be based on several theories,
e.g., von Mises and Tresca‘s criteria for ductile materials. Yielding begins when the
equivalent stress reaches the yield stress  Y . Subsequent plastic deformation may alter the
stress needed to produce renewed or continued yielding. A flow rule can be written in
multidimensional problems. It leads to a relation between stress increment d  and strain
increment d   . In the uniaxial case, this relation is simply written as
d  Et d (10)
which describes the increment of stress produced by an increment of strain. If the material is
unloading,
d  Ed  (11)
A hardening rule describes how the yield criterion is changed by the history of plastic flow.
There are two types of hardening rule, i.e., isotropic and kinematic hardening rules.
4.2.6 Multiaxial plasticity (Flow theory of plasticity in multiaxial stress state)
The total strain tensor is the summation of elastic (reversible) and plastic strains
(irreversible), i.e.,
    el    pl  (12)
In the case of pure elasto-plastic behaviour without damage, the elastic stiffness remains
same. So, the actual stress at any time can be derived from the elastic part of strain as
    Del  el    Del    pl  (13)
As long as the stress remains inside the elastic domain, the deformation process is purely
elastic and the plastic strain does not change. However, when the stress state reaches the yield
surface, plastic flow is initiated. During the plastic flow process, the stress state remains on
the yield surface. The yield surface equation
f    0 (14)
depends upon the choice of yield criteria used. For the evaluation of the components of the
plastic strain tensor, another additional criterion regarding the direction of plastic flow is
required and this is known as the flow rule. Flow rules should be deduced from the
____________________________________________________________________________________________
experimental observation. From the theoretical point of view, the theory of maximum plastic
energy dissipation rule is used to derive the appropriate flow rule.
The direction of the normal to the yield surface is determined by the gradient of f   . So,
the flow rule can be mathematically written as [writing f   as f for simplicity],
.
p  
. f
  
.
  f (15)
.
This is called the normality rule or associated flow rule.  stands for a scalar multiplier,
called plastic strain rate multiplier and it controls the magnitude of plastic strain. For a given
stress state, the gradient f is a fixed tensor specifying the direction of plastic strain rate.
The magnitude of this rate remains unspecified by the flow rule and it must be determined
from the condition that the stress during the plastic flow remains on the yield surface. The
flow rule is associated when the potential used for determining the plastic flow direction is
same as the yield surface. The response of most metals can be described well by an
associated flow rule, except when the loading path is highly non-proportional. However, for
pressure sensitive materials, the associated flow rule is many times unrealistic and must be
replaced by a more general non-associated flow rule written as,
.
p  
. g
  
.
  g (16)
where g   is a new function called the plastic potential. A generalized plastic potential
defines a set of equipotential surfaces such that the plastic strain always grows in the
direction normal to the surface on which the current stress state is located. A material with a
non-associated flow rule does not satisfy the postulate of maximum plastic dissipation.
In FEM, the strain evolution is determined by the displacement increments computed on the
structural level. The basic task on the level of material point is to evaluate the stress evolution
generated by a given strain history. Compared to the elastic case, the problem involves
additional unknowns, i.e., the components of plastic strain and plastic multiplier. In the
elastic regime, the yield function must remain negative and the rate of plastic multiplier is
zero. In the plastic regime, the yield function is zero and the rate of plastic multiplier is
positive.
Both cases are simultaneously dealt with the loading-unloading conditions,

. .
  0, f    0,  f    0 (17)
These conditions are also known as Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. During plastic flow, the
stress remains on the yield surface and hence the yield function remains equal to zero for a
.
certain period of time. The time derivative of the yield function, i.e., f vanishes whenever
.
the plastic multiplier  is non-zero. This is known as the consistency condition and
mathematically written as
____________________________________________________________________________________________
. .
 f 0 (18)
In this form, the condition has a general validity. Sometimes, the consistency condition is
written as
.
f 0 (19)
However, this is valid only during plastic flow and not during an elastic process.
4.2.7 Loading criteria and the elastic-plastic stiffness
We will describe here the criteria for loading and unloading during plastic flow and derive
the incremental stress-strain relations. If the current stress state   is in the elastic domain,
   0
.
then f and hence   0 from the consistency condition. Hence the plastic strain
remains constant and strain increment is purely elastic. The rate (increment) of stress can be
computed from the rate (increment) of strain from the standard elastic law (Hooke‘s law), i.e.,
 
   Del   el  
(20)
If the current stress state   is on the yield surface, then f    0 . In this case, the
material can either experience further plastic flow or start unloading elastically. During
plastic flow, the stress remains on the yield surface and invoking the consistency condition,
we write
.
f  f :   0 
.
(21)
 .
Substituting  from the Eq. (25) into Eq. (26), we get
   
f :
.
 f :
.
 .
 
 f :  Del   el  f :  Del     pl  f :  Del     f  0
. .
 . .
 (22)
.
If the strain evolution is prescribed, this equation contains a single scalar unknown  . The
elastic stiffness matrix  Del  is positive definite. Hence,
f :  Del  : f  0 (23)
.
for any nonzero tensor f . Solving Eq. (8), we get the plastic multiplier  as
.

f :  Del  :   .
(24)
f :  Del  : f
.
The first consistency condition states that the solution is admissible only if   0 . This is
equivalent to saying
f :  Del  :   0  .
(25)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The case for which

f :  Del  :   0
.
(26)
.
is known as the neutral loading condition. For the case of strict loading,   0 , the rate of
plastic strain can be derived using the flow rule as

. . .
 pl   f  f   
f  f :  Del  .
f :  Del  : f
:   (27)
Now, the rate of stress can be derived in term of total strain rate as

. .
  . .
 f  f :  Del  .
   Del     pl   Del     Del  : 
f :  Del  : f 
:  (28)
From the above expression, the equivalent elasto-plastic material stiffness tensor can be
written as
 D  : f  f :  Del 
 Dep    Del   el  (29)
f :  Del  : f
This tensor is used in place of the elastic stiffness tensor when we deal with elasto-plastic
analysis. In order to preserve the quadratic convergence of the Newton-Raphson iteration
process, the tangential stiffness matrix should be computed from the algorithmic stiffness
tensor. The unloading criterion is written as

f :  Del  :   0
.
(30)
4.2.8 Hardening in plasticity
For an elastic perfectly plastic material, the yield surface remains constant during plastic
flow. However, the micro-structure of materials changes as plastic flow continues and this
results in a change of properties observable on the macro-scale. Under uniaxial loading, the
stress transmitted by the yielding material, i.e., the yield surface can increase or decrease.
Fig. 4.7: Isotropic hardening. (a) uniaxial stress-strain diagram, (b) evolution of the
yield surface in the biaxial stress plane
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The increase in yield stress is referred to as hardening whereas the decrease in yield
stress is called softening. In order to describe the evolution of the loading surface, there
is a need for several new parameters for characterizing hardening. The simplest of
them is called isotropic hardening and this model needs only one parameter (strain or
work hardening parameter) [Fig. 4.7].
It may be noted that isotropic hardening is valid only for simple loading conditions.
But, for the case of unloading, cyclic loading and other complex situations, alternative
hardening rules are necessary. One of the alternative hardening rule is kinematic
hardening where the current loading space is assumed not to be expand but move as a
rigid body within the stress space. It is also required to model the Bauschinger effect.
This is often observed in metals subjected to cyclic loading. The hardening behaviour
of most materials appears to be combination of the isotropic and kinematic hardening
type and also sometimes accompanied by change of shape of the yield surface.
Kinematic hardening leads to the translation of the loading surface, i.e. shifting of the
origin of the initial yield surface [Fig. 4.8].
Fig. 4.8: Kinematic hardening. (a) uniaxial stress-strain diagram, (b) evolution of
the yield stress surface in the biaxial stress plane
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 4.9: A typical load-deflection response diagram
4.2.9 Nonlinear analysis applied to structural problems
This section reviews nonlinear structural problems by looking at the manifestation and
physical sources of nonlinear behavior. We begin by introducing response as a pictorial
characterization of nonlinearity of a structural system. Response is a graphical representation
of the fundamental concept of equilibrium path. Finally, the nonlinearities are classified
according to their source in the mathematical model of continuum mechanics and correlated
with the physical system. Examples of these nonlinearities in practical engineering
applications are given.
4.2.10 Equilibrium path and response diagrams
The concept of equilibrium path plays a central role in explaining the mysteries of nonlinear
structural analysis. This concept lends itself to graphical representation in the form of
response diagrams. The most widely used form of these pictures is the load-deflection
response diagram. Through this representation many key concepts can be illustrated and
interpreted in physical, mathematical or computational terms.
4.2.11 Load-deflection response
The gross or overall static behavior of many structures can be characterized by a load-
deflection or force-displacement response. The response is usually drawn in two dimensions
as a x-y plot as illustrated in Fig. 4.9. In this figure a ―representative‖ force quantity is plotted
against a ―representative‖ displacement quantity. If the response plot is nonlinear, the
structure behavior is nonlinear. A response diagram generally depicts the relationship
between inputs and outputs. In physical terms, it is the relation between what is applied and
what is measured. For structures the most common inputs are forces and the most common
____________________________________________________________________________________________
outputs are displacements or deflections. For relatively simple structures, the choice of load
and deflection variables is often clear-cut from considerations such as the availability of
experimental data. For more complex structures the choice may not be obvious, and many
possibilities may exist. The load is not necessarily an applied force but may be an integrated
quantity, e.g., the weight of traffic on a bridge, or the lift on an airplane wing.
There are different types of equilibrium paths that a structure can follow depending upon the
loading conditions. These are primary and secondary equilibrium paths as shown in Fig. 4.10.
The concepts of critical points, instability and bifurcation etc. come when a structures shifts
from the primary path to the secondary path. Certain points of an equilibrium path have
special significance in the applications and thus receive much attention. ―Branch‖ is
commonly used in the treatment of bifurcation phenomena, whereas ―trajectory‖ has temporal
or historical connotation. Limit points are those at which the tangent to the equilibrium path is
horizontal, i.e. parallel to the deflection axis. Bifurcation points are those at which two or
more equilibrium paths cross.
At critical points the relation between the given characteristic load and the associated
deflection is not unique. Physically, the structure becomes uncontrollable or marginally
controllable there. The points, at which the tangent to the equilibrium path is vertical, i.e.
parallel to the load axis, are called turning points. These are not critical points and have less
physical significance, but are of interest for some structures. They have some computational
significance because they can affect the performance of certain solution methods. Points at
which a path suddenly stops or ―breaks‖ because of physical failure are called failure points.
The phenomenon of failure may be local or global in nature. In the first case (e.g, failure of a
noncritical structure component) the structure may regain functional equilibrium after
dynamically ―jumping‖ to another equilibrium path. In the latter case the failure is
catastrophic or destructive and the structure does not regain functional equilibrium.
Fig. 4.10: Primary and secondary equilibrium paths
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 4.11: Response diagram for the purely linear structural model
4.2.12 Tangent stiffness and stability
A linear structure is a mathematical model characterized by a linear fundamental equilibrium

path for all possible choices of load and deflection variables. This is shown schematically in
Fig. 4.11. The consequences of such behavior are not difficult to foresee. The different
features of linear structure are
-A linear structure can sustain any load whatsoever and undergo any displacement
magnitude.
-There are no critical, turning or failure points.
-Response to different load systems can be obtained by superposition.
-Removing all loads returns the structure to the reference position.
The requirements for such a model to be applicable are (a) Perfect linear elasticity for any
deformation, (b) Infinitesimal deformations, (c) Infinite strength. These assumptions are not
only physically unrealistic but also mutually contradictory. For example, if the deformations
are to remain infinitesimal for any load, the body must be rigid rather than elastic, which
contradicts the first assumption. Thus, there are necessarily limits placed on the validity of
the linear model.
Despite these obvious limitations, the linear model can be a good approximation of portions
of the nonlinear response, in particular the fundamental path response in the vicinity the
reference state [Fig. 4.2]. For many structures this segment represents the operational or
service range and hence, the linear model is widely used in design calculations. The key
advantage of this idealization is that the superposition-of-effects principle applies
The tangent to an equilibrium path may be informally viewed as the limit of the ratio force
increment displacement increment. This is by definition stiffness or, more precisely, the
____________________________________________________________________________________________
tangent stiffness associated with the representative force and displacement. The reciprocal
ratio is called flexibility or compliance. The sign of the tangent stiffness is closely associated
with the question of stability of an equilibrium state. A negative stiffness is necessarily
associated with unstable equilibrium. A positive stiffness is necessary but not sufficient for
stability. If the load and deflection quantities are conjugate in the virtual work sense, the area
under a load-deflection diagram may be interpreted as work performed by the system.
4.2.13 Different types of responses
The response diagrams in Fig. 4.12 illustrate three ―monotonic‖ types of response: linear,
hardening, and softening. Symbols F and L identify failure and limit points, respectively. A
response such as in Fig. 4.12(a) is characteristic of pure crystals, glassy, and certain high
strength composite materials. A response such as in Fig. 4.12 (b) is typical of cable, netted
and pneumatic (inflatable) structures, which may be collectively called tensile structures. The
stiffening effect comes from geometry ―adaptation‖ to the applied loads [Geometric
nonlineraity]. Some flat-plate assemblies also display this behavior initially. A response such
as in Fig. 4.12(c) is more common for structure materials than the previous two.
A linear response is followed by a softening regime that may occur slowly or suddenly. The
softening behaviours are given in Fig. 4.12(d) to (g) respectively. These diagrams illustrate a
combination of different behaviours that can complicate the response as well as the task of
the analyst. Here B and T denote bifurcation and turning points, respectively. The snap-
through response [Fig. 4.12(d)] combines softening with hardening following the second
limit point. The response branch between the two limit points has a negative stiffness and is
therefore unstable. If the structure is subject to a prescribed constant load, the structure ―takes
off‖ dynamically when the first limit point is reached. A response of this type is typical of
slightly curved structures such as shallow arches.
The snap-back response [Fig. 4.12 (e)] is an exaggerated snap-through, in which the response
curve ―turns back‖ in itself with the consequent appearance of turning points. The
equilibrium between the two turning points may be stable and consequently physically
realizable. The structure takes the path that is dynamically preferred (in the sense of having a
lower energy) over the others. Bifurcation points may occur in any sufficiently thin structure
that experiences compressive stresses. Bifurcation, limit and turning points may occur in
many combinations as illustrated in Fig. 4.12(g). Thin cylindrical shells under axial
compression provide a good example of such a complicated response.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 4.12: Different types of monotonic responses of a structure. (a) Perfectly linear, (b)
Hardening, (c) Softening, (d) Snap-through. (e) Snap-back, (f) Bifurcation, (g)
Bifurcation combined with limit points and snap-back
4.3 Sources of nonlinearities in analysis of pressure vessels
Nonlinear computational mechanics continues to be an active area of research. Some of the

nonlinear structural problems such as material creep are usually analyzed by se of
constitutive relations and computational algorithms very similar to those used for the analysis
of plastic deformations. Many times, creep and plasticity are combined. Forming processes
such as extrusion and rolling involve large plastic deformations.
Elastic response may be considered negligible, and the material analyzed as if it were a
viscous fluid. Spingback after the forming process is complete can be modeled if the
viscoelestic material is invoked in the computation. Casting processes involve considerable
heat transfer calculations and change of phase. Problems of moving contact fields such as the
rolling contact of a tire on pavement have to be addresses by special contact algorithms.
Other contact problems either static or dynamic such as bearings, joints in rock, gaps in rocks
that may open or close etc. have been modeled in literature using special type of elements.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Membranes may be deflected by pressure as when a balloon is inflated. Such a problem

typically involves large strains, large deflections and large rotations.
Fig. 4.13: Different variables and their physical sources encountered in FEM
Pressure loads change in direction as they continue to act normal to the membrane. Element
load vectors also change in magnitude as pressure increases and as the element surface area
changes due to pressure. If a membrane is initially flat and unstressed, it has no resistance to
lateral loads. However as it deforms, it resists lateral loads. Hence a fictitious initial stress is
added in the first cycle to generalize the computational procedure and to take care of the
problem of singularity in the solution. Cable problems are somewhat similar to membrane
problems. One can follow the standard approach of dividing each cable of a cable network
into many two-noded bar elements. However this approach is inefficient if deflections are
large. A method that can treat the entire cable as a single element appears to be much more
economical.
A response diagram characterizes only the gross behavior of a structure, as it might be

observed simply by conducting an experiment on a mechanical testing machine. Further
insight into the source of nonlinearity is required to capture such physical behavior with
mathematical and computational models for computer simulation. For structural analysis
there are four sources of nonlinear behavior [Fig. 4.13 and 4.14]. The corresponding
nonlinear effects are identified by the terms material, geometric, force boundary condition
and displacement boundary condition [Fig. 4.15]. The different requirements of engineering
applications from nonlinear analysis point of view are shown in Table 1.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fv
  Bu T  Fv  0
  D

Fig. 4.14: Different variables and their mathematical sources encountered in FEM
4.4 Geometric nonlinearity
Change in geometry as the structure deforms is taken into account in setting up the strain
displacement and equilibrium equations. This type of nonlinearity find applications in various
areas such as slender structures in aerospace, civil and mechanical engineering applications,
tensile structures such as cables and inflatable membranes, metal and plastic forming and
stability analysis of all types.
Fv

Fig. 4.15: Different sources of nonlinearity encountered in FEM
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.1: Different requirements of engineering applications from nonlinear analysis

point of view
4.4.1 Strain-displacement equations

    Bu (31)
The shape function matrix  B  is nonlinear when finite strains (as opposed to infinitesimal
strains) are expressed in terms of displacements.
4.4.2 Equilibrium equations

T    Fv   0 (32)
In the classical linear theory of elasticity, Eq. (2) is the internal equilibrium equation for body
forces, but it is not necessarily true if geometric nonlinearities are considered. The term
geometric nonlinerities models a range of physical problems as discussed below.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Large strain. The strains themselves may be large, say over 5%. Examples: rubber structures
(tires, membranes), metal forming. These are frequently associated with material
nonlinearities.
Small strains but finite displacements and/or rotations: Slender structures undergoing finite
displacements and rotations although the deformational strains may be treated as
infinitesimal. Example: cables, springs, arches, bars, thin plates.
Linearized prebuckling:. When both strains and displacements may be treated as infinitesimal
before loss of stability by buckling. These may be viewed as initially stressed members.
Example: many civil engineering structures such as buildings and stiff (non-suspended)
bridges.
4.5 Material nonlinearity
Material behavior depends on current deformation state and possibly past history of the
deformation. Other constitutive variables (pre-stress, temperature, time, moisture,
electromagnetic fields, etc.) may also be involved. It occurs in several applications such as
structures undergoing nonlinear elasticity, plasticity, visco-elasticity, creep, or inelastic rate
effects. The source of this nonlinearity is the constitutive equation.
4.5.1 Constitutive equations
The constitutive equations that relate stresses and strains for a linear elastic material are
written as below.
    D  (33)
where  D  is the linear elasticity matrix. If the material does not fit the elastic model,
generalizations of this equation are necessary, and a whole branch of continuum mechanics is
devoted to the formulation, study and validation of constitutive equations.
The engineering significance of material nonlinearities varies greatly across disciplines. They
seem to occur most often in civil engineering that deals with inherently nonlinear materials
such as concrete, soils and low-strength steel. In mechanical engineering creep and plasticity
are most important, frequently occurring in combination with strain-rate and thermal effects.
In aerospace engineering material nonlinearities are less important and tend to be local in
nature (for example, cracking and ―localization‖ failures of composite materials).
Material nonlinearities may give rise to very complex phenomena such as path dependence,
hysteresis, localization, shakedown, fatigue, progressive failure. The detailed numerical
simulation of these phenomena in three dimensions is still beyond the capabilities of the most
powerful computers.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4.6 Force boundary condition nonlinearity
Applied forces depend on deformation. The most important engineering application concerns
pressure loads of fluids. These include hydrostatic loads on submerged or container
structures; aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads caused by the motion of aeriform and
hydroform fluids (wind loads, wave loads, drag forces).
Of more mathematical interest are gyroscopic and non-conservative follower forces, but these
are of interest only in a limited class of problems, particularly in aerospace engineering. The
applied forces (prescribed surface tractions tˆ and/or body forces b) depend on the
displacements, i.e.,
 
t  t (u), Fv  Fv (u) (34)
4.7 Displacement boundary condition nonlinearity
Displacement boundary conditions depend on the deformation of the structure. The most
important application is the contact problem, in which no-interpenetration conditions are
enforced on flexible bodies while the extent of the contact area is unknown. Non-structural
applications of this problem pertain to the more general class of free boundary problems, e.g.,
ice melting, phase changes, flow in porous media. The determination of the essential
boundary conditions is a key part of the solution process. For the contact problems,
prescribed displacements d̂ depend on internal displacements u, i.e.,
 
d  d (u) (35)
4.8 Different configurations in nonlinear analysis
The motion of a system or structure is said to be kinematically admissible if the following

conditions are satisfied, i.e., (a) continuity of particles positions is preserved so that no gaps
or voids appear, (b) kinematic constraints on the motion are preserved. A kinematically
admissible motion along a stage will be called a staged motion. For one such motion the
displacements u(x) characterize the state and the stage control parameter λ characterizes the
control or action. Both will be generally parametrized by the pseudo-time t so that a staged
motion can be generally represented by
    t  , u  u  x, t  (36)
If in these equations we freeze t, we have a configuration of the structure. Thus a
configuration is formally the union of state and control. It may be informally viewed as a
―snapshot‖ taken of the structure and actions upon it when the pseudo-time is frozen.
If the configuration satisfies the equilibrium equations, it is called an equilibrium

configuration. In general, however, a randomly given configuration is not in equilibrium
____________________________________________________________________________________________
unless artificial body and surface forces are applied to it. A staged response, or simply
response, can be now mathematically defined as a series of equilibrium configurations
obtained as λ is continuously varied.
A particular characteristic of geometrically nonlinear analysis is the need to carefully

distinguish among different configurations of the structure. As noted above, each set of
kinematically admissible displacements u(x) plus a staged control parameter λ defines a
configuration. This is not necessarily an equilibrium configuration; in fact it will not usually
be one. It is also important to realize that an equilibrium configuration is not necessarily a
physical configuration assumed by the actual structure. Some configurations that are
important in geometrically nonlinear analysis receive special names, e.g., current, base,
reference, iterated, target, perturbed, corotated etc.
Agreat number of names can be found for these configurations in the literature in finite
elements and continuum mechanics. To further compound the confusion, here are some of
these alternative names.
-Current configuration: arbitrary, deformed, distorted, moving, present, spatial, varying.

-Base configuration: baseline, initial, material, global, natural, original, overall,
undeformed, undistorted.
-Reference configuration: fixed, frozen, known.
-Iterated configuration: intermediate, stepped.
-Target configuration: converged, equilibrated spatial, unknown.
-Perturbed configuration: adjacent, deviated, disturbed, incremented, neighboring, varied,
virtual.
-Corotated configuration: attached, convected, ghost, phantom, shadow.
Many finite element treatments, especially those using the Total Lagrangian description,
confuse base and reference configurations.
4.9 Kinematic descriptions for geometric nonlinearity
Three kinematic descriptions of geometrically nonlinear finite element analysis are in current
use in programs that solve nonlinear structural problems. They can be distinguished by the
choice of reference configuration.
Total Lagrangian description (TL). The reference configuration is seldom or never changed.
Often it is kept equal to the base configuration throughout the analysis. Strains and stresses
are measured with respect to this configuration.
Updated Lagrangian description (UL). The last target configuration, once reached, becomes
the next reference configuration. Strains and stresses are redefined as soon as the reference
configuration is updated.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Corotational description (CR). The reference configuration is ―split.‖ Strains and stresses are
measured from the corotated configuration whereas the base configuration is maintained as
reference for measuring rigid body motions.
Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian description (ALE). This is hybrid technique which combined
the advantages of Eulerian and Lagrangian methods.
This method captures the advantages of both methods while minimizing the disadvantages.
As the word suggests, this method is the arbitrary combination of Eulerian and Lagrangian
descriptions. The combination is specified by the user through the selection of a mesh
motion. It has been developed in order to avoid some of the inherent disadvantages of
Eulerian and Lagrangian methods whch are described below.
When the material is severely deformed, the Lagrangian elements become also severely
deformed as they move with the material. The approximation accuracy of the elements
deteriorates particularly for the higher order elements. The determinant of the Jacobian may
become negative at quadrature points, aborting calculations and causing several local
inaccuracies. In addition, the conditioning of the linearized Newton equations deteriorates
and explicit stable time steps decrease markedly.
In many situations, the remeshing of the Lagrangian meshes becomes unavoidable. This is
burdensome and introduces errors due to projections. In some category of problems,
Lagrangian methods are totally inappropriate such as in fluid mechanics problems with high
velocity flows where interest is focused on a particular spatial sub-domain such as the domain
around an aerofoil. Similarly, the modeling of metal forming processes such as extrusion
involves fixed spatial domains for which Eulerian method is suitable.
In Eulerian finite elements, the elements are fixed in space and material convects through the
elements. These elements undergo no distortions due to material motion. However, the
treatment of constitutive equations and their updates are complicated due to convection of
materials through the elements. The TL formulation remains the most widely used in
continuum-based Lagrangian finite element codes followed by UL. The CR formulation is
gaining in popularity for structural elements such as beams and plates.
4.10 Numerical methods in plasticity
The objective of nonlinear FE analysis is to trace the response of the structural model
subjected to the given loading history. This is usually done using an incremental iterative
procedure. The load is applied in a number of steps (increments) and the structural response
after each step is computed from the equilibrium equations
fint d   f ext (37)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
where the internal forces fint depend upon the nodal displacement vector d  in a nonlinear
way and can be written as

fint d    B   B , d dv
T
 (38)
v
As these equations are in general nonlinear, they have to be solved by an iterative method.
This means inside the top level loop of load incrementation, we have an iterative loop that
restores equilibrium. Examples of step size control techniques include the load control, direct
or indirect displacement control, arc-length control etc.
Examples of iterative methods include the standard or modified Newton-Raphson iteration,
initial stiffness method or quasi-Newton methods. Additional components of an incremental
iterative solution strategy are the convergence criteria and optionally convergence
accelerators such as line-search techniques or step-size adjustment rules.
4.11 Newton-Raphson method of iteration
The most natural way of specifying an incremental step is by prescribing the external loads
that act on the structure at the end of the step. The loading can be either directly expressed in
terms of the equivalent external force vector fext or converted to this format by evaluating the
integrals in the following way
fext    N Fv  dv+  N FS ds
T T
(39)
v S
where  N  is the shape function matrix and Fv  , Fs  are body and surface forces per unit
volume and surface area respectively. The discretized loading path is therefore described by
the sequence f ext  , f ext  , f ext  etc. Our goal is to find the corresponding nodal displacement
1 2 3
1  2 3
vectors d , d  , d  etc. such that each couple d  n

, fext n satisfies the Equation (40).
Fig. 4.16: (a)Standard Newton-Raphson method, (b) Modified Newton-Raphson

method
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Let us explain the iterative solution procedure applied with a generic loading step number n .
 n 1
At the beginning of the step, we start from the displacements  d  that were computed in
the previous step from the conditions of equilibrium between the corresponding internal
forces fint d  and the external forces f
 n 1  n 1
ext . The external forces are now increased to
f ext n  and the resulting displacements dn have to be found by solving the equilibrium
equation

fint d 
 n
 f  n
ext (40)
 n  n,0  n1
As an initial guess for d , we take d  d . After linearization of the left hand
 n,0
side of Equation [11] around d , the nonlinear Equations [9] are replaced by the linear
equations as given below.
fint d   K d  d
 n,0  n,0  n,1
 fext n (41)
 n,1
where d  is the first approximation of the unknown displacement increments
dn  dn  dn1 (42)
Introducing the simplified notations  K  n,0    K d


 n,0 
  
and fint n,0  fint d  n,0 , we can  
rewrite the equation 1.5 as
 K  n,0  d n,1  fext n  f  n,0 (43)
  int
The displacement increments d n,1 solved from Equation [14] satisfies the linearized
 n,1  n,0  n,1
Equations [12] exactly, but the updated displacements d  d  d satisfy the
original nonlinear equation 1.4 only approximately. The graphical representation of this
method is shown in Fig. 4.8. Nevertheless, from the graphical representation in Fig. 4.8, it is
clear that d  n,1 is dn than was the initial
typically much closer to the exact solution
 n1  n ,1
vector d . We can now linearize the governing equations around d  and compute a
correction for the displacement increment from the equation similar to Equation (43), but
with an updated stiffness matrix  K  n,1  and internal force vector fint  . Such iterative
n ,1
 
correction can be repeated as many times as needed until the equations of equilibrium are
satisfied with a sufficient accuracy.
However, if the convergence is too slow, it is computationally more effective to reduce the
step size than use an excessive number of iterations.
The iterative procedure is formally described by the recursive formulae as given below.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
 K  n,i 1   d  n,i   fext n  f ext n,i 1 

 
 i  1, 2,3,... (44)
d   dn,i 1   dn,i  
n , i
 n ,i 
where d  is the displacement approximation after the i th iteration in step number n , and
 d  n,i  is the displacement correction applied in the i th iteration.

 n ,i 
The accumulated displacement increment d  is defined as summation of the
displacement corrections in each iteration and are written as
i
dn,i   dn,k  (45)
k 1
Under normal conditions, the sequence of approximations d  n,i  converges to dn as

i   . However, the iteration process is stopped after a finite number of cycles and the last
approximation is taken as the converged value at the end of the step.
For a structure with a single degree of freedom, the iterative procedure just explained
corresponds to the classical Newton method applied to the nonlinear equation
r d  fext n  fint d  0 (46)
Its generalization dealing with a set of nonlinear equations is referred to as the Newton-
Raphson method [Fig. 4.8(a)]. Each iteration involves three computationally expensive
operations, i.e.,
(i) Evaluation of internal forces

(ii) Evaluation of global tangent stiffness matrix
(iii) Solution of a system of linear equations.
For large scale models, step (ii) and (iii) may be excessively expensive. The computational
cost can be reduced if the stiffness matrix is not updated in every iteration. The modified
Newton-Raphson method evaluates the stiffness matrix only at the beginning of the
incremental step and does not alter it in subsequent iterations. This means  K  is not the exact
tangent stiffness matrix anymore except at the first iteration.
The rate of convergence also slows down [Fig. 4.8(b)]. On the other hand, the increased
number of iterations needed to achieve same accuracy is often more than compensated by the
reduced number of operations per iteration. This stiffness matrix is assembled and
decomposed only once so that in subsequent iterations, step (ii) can be completely skipped
and step (iii) is limited to the forward reduction and backward substitution performed only on
the right hand side vector without any manipulation of the coefficients stored in the system
matrix.
It is also possible to use other modifications of the Newton-Raphson method, i.e., to update
the matrix after every k iterations (where k  1 ) or to use the elastic stiffness matrix
____________________________________________________________________________________________
throughout the entire solution process. This later technique is also known as the initial
stiffness method. Another family of iterative algorithms, called the quasi-Newton methods,
is related to the secant method of finding the root of a nonlinear function.
4. 12 Geometric nonlinearity
4.12.1 Illustration of geometric nonlinearity (cantilever beam)
Let us consider a cantilever beam as shown in Fig. 4.10. The problem is to find out the
deflection of the beam under load P and the bending moment M L . The beam is assumed to
be slender and the material is linear elastic. For small deflections, the moment produced at
the fixed end is
M0  P.LT  M L (47)
However for larger deflections ( H  LT ), the moment at the fixed end becomes
M0  P.H  M L (48)
which is less than the case for smaller deflections. The distance H depends upon P and M L .
The nonlinearity of such a type is called geometric nonlinearity. The name implies that
deformations significantly alter the location and distribution of loads so that equilibrium
equations must be written with respect to the deformed geometry which is not known in
advance.
Fig. 4.17: (a) Cantilever beam under tip loading, (b) Column under axial load
To illustrate the solution procedure, let us consider a plane frame element having two nodes
and three dof at each node, i.e., deflection in x and y directions and in-plane rotation. These
are shown in Fig. 4.17(a). The plane frame element has axial stiffness AE and bending
stiffness EI where A is cross-sectional area, I is the moment of inertia and E is the young‘s
modulus of elasticity of the material. Let the cantilever beam shown in Fig. 4.17(a) is divided
into many elements and the initial displacement vector be d 0  0 . The load vector applied
____________________________________________________________________________________________
is R and we want to find the solution for the current displacement vector d  under the
applied loads.
The algorithm for the geometric nonlinear analysis is given as below.
-Form the tangent stiffness matrix  Kt i of the structure in the current configuration of the
frame. Use the displacements d i to form the resisting loads which are the loads applied to
structure nodes by the deformed elements. In the first step this load vector is zero.
-Solve for the displacement increments d i 1 and update the configuration to d i 1 where
di 1   Kt i R  RR i 

1
(49)
d i 1  d i  d i 1 (50)
-The net load R  RR i is unbalance or resultant force between the externally applied load
and the internally generated loads which drives the structure towards a configuration to reach
equilibrium.
-Repeat the process (i) to (iii) until d i 1 converges between the successive iterations.
For the iteration process, many methods such as Newton-Raphson procedures can be used
where the stiffness matrix is  K t  has to be evaluated before each iteration for updating the
geometric nonlinearity. The process explained with the help of the Fig. 4.18 for the plane
frame element.
Fig. 4.18: (a) Plane frame element before deformation with all dof D1 to D6 . (b)
Plane frame element after deformation
In the deformed and displaced configuration, element length projections xL and yL on global
axes x-y and the orientation  of the local axis x ' are [Fig. 4.11 (b)]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
xL  x0  D4  D1
yL  y0  D5  D2 (51)
 yL 
  tan 1  
 xL 
 
Element dof in the local coordinate system x'  y ' are d '  0 0 1 u2 0  2  where
T
1  D3     0  , 2  D6     0 
1 (52)
u2   2 x0  D4  D1  D4  D1    2 y0  D5  D2  D5  D2 
L  L0 
the expression for u2 in Equation [23] is more accurate than the expression u2  L  L0 . In the

local coordinate system x'  y ' , load r ' applied to nodes by the distorted element can be
obtained using the stresses produced by the local dof d  .

'
The load r  can
'
also be
calculated by using the expression
r    Kt d 
1
(53)
Here the element stiffness matrix  Kt'  in the local coordinate system does not change as the
local system moves and the element deforms. If axial forces are significant, particularly in
compression, one should add to this matrix a stiffness matrix  K  which s dependent upon
the deformation. Referred to the global co-ordinates x-y, the element stiffness matrix and
element nodal load vectors are
 Kt   T T  K T  and r  T T r (54)
where T  is the transformation matrix from local to global coordinate system.
Fig. 4.19: Geometric nonlinearity in different levels of elastic and elasto-plastic

analysis
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4.12.2 Importance of geometric nonlinearity in nonlinear FEM

There are different levels of elastic and inelastic FE analysis depending upon consideration of
effect of geometric nonlinearity and finite strain formulation. Fig. 4.19 shows the different
levels of analysis. First level elastic excludes only nonlinearities. This is usually acceptable
for service loads. Elastic critical load is usually determined from an eigenvalue analysis
resulting in the buckling load. The second-order elasticity accounts for the effects of finite
deformation and displacements, equilibrium equations and are written in terms of the
geometry of the deformed shape, does not account for material nonlinearilties, may be able to
detect bifurcation and or increased stiffness (when a member is subjected to a tensile axial
load).
First-order inelastic equilibrium equations (which are written in terms of the geometry of the
undeformed structure) accounts for material non-linearity. Second-order inelastic equations
of equilibrium written in terms of the geometry of the deformed shape, can account for both
geometric and material nonlinearities and these are most suitable to determine failure or
ultimate loads.
4.13 Elastic instability
4.13.1 Analytical Solution for the column buckling problem
Figure 4.20 shows a column loaded axially with P . The differential equation for bending of
the column (beam theory) is given by
d 2 y Mz
 (55)
dx2 EI
where E and I are young‘s modulus of the material and are moment of inertia of the beam
under consideration.
Fig. 4.20: Buckling of column
____________________________________________________________________________________________
At any location x along the column, the imperfection in the column compounded by the
concentric load P, gives rise to a moment
M z  P. y (56)
So, the differential equation becomes
d2y 2
k y  0 (57)
dx2
where k 2  P EI
The solution of the above differential equation [28] becomes
y  A sin  kx   B cos  kx  (58)
The boundary conditions are
(a) y  0 at x  0
(59)
(b) y  0 at x  L
using the above boundary conditions, the solution for the deflection of the column is
y  A sin  kx  (60)
n P
where k  
L EI
v1 v2
u1 u2
1 2
 v   v 
 x  or 1   x  or  2 
 1  2
v
Fig. 4.21: Representative beam element with geometric with degrees of freedom u, v and
x
Hence the critical buckling load of the column is ( n  1 )

 2 EI
Pcr  (61)
L2
The critical stress for buckling is
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Pcr  2 E
 cr 
 (62)
A  L 2
r
 
where I  Ar is the area moment of inertia of the beam.
2
Finite element formulation of the column buckling problem
Consider a generalized beam element (Fig. 4.21). The axial strain (finite strain theory) due to
axial deformation is given by
u 1  u   v   w  
2 2 2
 xx axial            (63)
x 2  x   x   x  
The axial strain due to bending is given as

 2v
 xx bending   y 2 (64)
x
The total strain is given as (neglecting lower order terms)
u 1  v   2v
2
 xx   xx axial   xx bending      y 2 (65)

x 2  x  x
The elastic strain energy of the element is given as
1 1
U e   E xx2 d     xx2 E dAdx (66)
2  2LA
Substituting Equation [36] in Equation [37] and simplifying it with the help of
 dA  A,  y.dA  0,  y .dA  I
2
(67)
A A A
and representing the axial loading as

u
Px  EA (68)
x
we get the strain energy expression for the element as
1    2v   v  
2
 u 
2 2
1
U  U  U   EA   dx    EI  2   Px    dx
e e e
(69)
2 L  x  2 L   x   x  
a b
v  2v
Now representing the deformations ( u, and 2 ) in terms of nodal displacements u as
x x
u   N u , v   N u
u v
  N, x  u ,   N, x  u
x  
(70)
x
 2v
  N, xx  u
x 2 
we get the total potential energy as
____________________________________________________________________________________________
1 T 1
 e  U e W e  u  Ke u  uT  K g  u  uT P (71)
2 2
where  Ke  and
 K g  are element level elastic stiffness and geometric stiffness matrices
respectively and these are expressed as
 EA EA 
 L 0 0  0 0 
L
 
 0 12EI 6EI
0
12EI 6EI 
 3
 L3 L2 L L2 
 6EI 4EI 6EI 2EI 
 0 0 
 Ke    EA L L 
2
L L2 (72)
EA 
 0 0 0 0 
 L L 
 12EI 6EI 12EI 6EI 
 0  3  2 0 3
 2 
 L L L L 
 6EI 2EI 6EI 4EI 
 0 0  2
L2
L L L 
0 0 0 0 0 0 
 L 
0 6 L
0 
6
 5 10 5 10 
 L 2L2 L L2 
0 0   
 K g   x  30 
P 10 15 10
(73)
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
0  6  L 0
6

L
 5 10 5 10 
 2 
0 L  L L 2L2 
0 
 10 30 10 15 
The corresponding generalized element nodal displacement vector is

v
uT  u v or rotation ' ' (74)
 x 
From principle of minimum potential energy of the system, we get global FE equation as
 K u  P (75)
Where
 K    Ke    Kg  (76)
 Ke is the global elastic stiffness matrix and  K g  is global geometric nonlinear stiffness
matrix of all assembled elements.
4.13.2 Elastic instability (Bifurcation analysis)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
In elastic instability, the intensity of the axial load system to cause buckling is yet unknown,
the incremental stiffness matrix must first be numerically evaluated using an arbitrary chosen
 
load intensity P* since  K g  is itself a function of axial load Px . For buckling to occur, the
intensity of the axial load system must be  times the initially arbitrarily chosen intensity of
 
the force. Note that for a structure, the initial distribution of P* must be obtained from a
linear elastic analysis. Hence, the buckling load,  P is given by
P   P* (77)
Since the geometric stiffness matrix is proportional to the internal forces at the start, it
follows that
 K g     K g*  (78)
where  K g*  corresponds to the geometric stiffness matrix for unit values of the applied
loading.
Fig. 4.22: Buckling of column
The elastic stiffness matrix  K e  remains a constant, hence we can write the equilibrium
equation as
 K    K  u   P 
e
*
g
*
(79)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The displacement vector will be given as

u   Ke     K g*    P*
1
(80)
The displacements tend toward infinity (i.e buckling/bifurcation/instability) and hence we can
write
 Ke     Kg*   0 (81)
This is an eigenvalue problem. Alternatively, it can simply be argued that there is no unique
solution (bifurcation condition) to u . The lowest value of   i.e., crit  will give the
buckling load for the structure and the buckling loads will be given by
Pcrit    P* (82)
The deformed shape is directly obtained from the corresponding eigenvector.
4.13.3 Example-2: Stability of column
Determine the buckling load for the following column given in Fig. 4.22.
Solution:
The elastic stiffness matrix for element 1 and 2 are given as
The geometric stiffness matrix for element 1 and 2 are given as
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The structure's stiffness matrices  K e  and  K g  can now be assembled from the element
stiffness matrices. Eliminating rows and columns 2, 7, 8, 9 corresponding to zero
displacements (applying boundary conditions) in the column, we obtain
and
Noting that in this case  K g*    K g  for P  1 , the determinant  Ke     K g*   0 leads to
____________________________________________________________________________________________
AL2  L2
Introducing   and   , the determinant becomes
I EI
Fig. 4.23: Buckling analysis of framed structure
Expanding the determinant, we obtain the cubic equation in  as

3 3  220 2  3840 14400  0 (83)
The solutions for  are given as 49.3808, 18.7754 and 5.1772. The lowest value of the root is
  5.1772 . So, the critical load is
____________________________________________________________________________________________
EI EI
 Pcr  fem  
2
 5.1772 2 (84)
L L
The exact solution for the critical buckling load of the column is given as
 4.4934 EI  4.4934 EI
2 2
EI
 Pcr analytical    5.0477 2 (85)
l 2
 2L  2
L
The numerical value of critical buckling load is about 2.6 percent higher than the analytical
solution.
4.13.4 Exercise-1
Determine the buckling load for the following frame [Fig. 4.23]. Neglect axial deformation.
Hint: The global equilibrium equations after substitution of boundary conditions can be
written as
After solution of the cubic equation with unknown  , the smallest buckling load
amplification factor  is obtained as 2.017 (Ans).
4.13.5 Effect of axial load on flexural deformation of beam
It is evident that since  K g  depends on the magnitude of axial load Px , which itself may be
an unknown in a framework, then we do have a geometrically non-linear problem. The
equilibrium equation is given as
 K   K  u  P
e g (86)
Since  K g  depends on the axial laod  P , the preoblem is nonlinear. A simple way to solve
this nonlinear equation is to use a step-by-step incremental procedure. The linearized
incremental formulation can be obtained by applying an incremental operator  . The
following set of equations is needed to be solved iteratively for this purpose.
Pi   Ke    K g  i1 ui
(87)
ui   Ke    K g  i1 Pi
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4.13.6 Example-3
Determine the mid-span displacement and member end forces for the beam-column shown
below [Fig. 4.24] in terms of Px . The concentrated force is 50 kN applied at mid-span. Given:
E=200 GPa, I  2e  3 m4 .
Fig. 4.24: Effect of axial load on deflection of beam
Solution:
Using two elements for the beam column, the only degrees of freedom are the deflection and
rotation at mid-span (we neglect the axial deformation). The element stiffness and geometric
matrices are given by
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Assembling the stiffness and geometric matrices and substituting the boundary conditions, we
get
and the displacements would be
and the member end forces for element 1 are given by:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Note that had we not accounted for the axial forces, then the solutions for the generalized
displacements would have been
and
 Plft   0 
V   
 lft   25 
 M lft   75 
  
 Prgt   0 
 Vrgt  25
   
 M rgt   75 
Alternatively, if instead of having a compressive force, we had a tensile force, then
and
____________________________________________________________________________________________
We observe that the compressive force increased the displacements and the end moments,
whereas a tensile one stiffens the structure by reducing them.
4.13.7 Exercise-2
Analyze the stability of the following structure [Fig. 4.25]. Compare the axial force caused by
the coupled membrane/flexural effects with the case where there is no interaction.
Fig. 4.25: Stability of the framed structure
Hint: In the following solution, we will first determine the axial forces based on the elastic
stiffness matrix only. Then, on the basis of those axial forces, we shall determine the
geometric stiffness matrix, and solve for the displacements. Because of the non-linearity of
the problem, we may have to iterate in order to reach convergence.
Following each analysis, we shall re-compute the geometric stiffness matrix on the basis of
the axial loads determined from the previous iteration. Note that convergence will be reached
only for stable problems. If the method fails to converge, it implies possible bifurcation
which could be caused by elastic displacements approaching L sin  , due to either  being
too small, or E being too small (i.e., not stiff enough).
4.15 Limit load analysis by finite element analysis
The elastic design method, also termed as allowable stress method (or Working stress
method), is a conventional method of design based on the elastic properties of the material
used. This method of design limits the structural usefulness of the material upto a certain
allowable stress, which is well below the elastic limit. The stresses due to working loads do
____________________________________________________________________________________________
not exceed the specified allowable stresses, which are obtained by applying an adequate
factor of safety to the yield stress of the material used. The elastic design does not take into
account the strength of the material beyond the elastic stress. Therefore the structure designed
according to this method will be heavier than that designed by using theplastic methods.
In the method of plastic design of a structure, the ultimate load rather than the yield stress is
regarded as the design criterion. The term plastic has occurred due to the fact that the
ultimate load is found from the strength of material in the plastic range. This method is also
known as method of load factor design or ultimate load design. The strength of material
beyond the yield stress is fully utilised in this method. This method is rapid and provides a
rational approach for the analysis of the structure. This method also provides striking
economy as regards the weight of material since the sections designed by this method are
smaller in size than those designed by the method of elastic design.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
(BPVC) is a standard that provides rules for the design, fabrication, and inspection of boilers
and pressure vessels. This code is based on the observed safety of vessels/components. A
pressure component designed and fabricated in accordance with this standard will have a
long, useful service life, and one that ensures the protection of human life and property.
Volunteers, who are nominated to its committees based on their technical expertise and on
their ability to contribute to the writing, revising, interpreting, and administering of the
document, write the BPVC. In the early years, ASME created a committee to develop design
and construction requirements to ensure the integrity for important pressure-retaining
components. This resulted in what is today called BPVC‘s different sections. In general
ASME follows two routes for design of a component. They are 1) design by formula (DBF)
and 2) design by analysis (DBA). Section VIII Division I of the code utilizes the DBF
procedure, where formulas are provided to design calculations. In Section III and Section
VIII Division 2, DBA route is provided, where the admissibility of a design is checked, or
proven, via a detailed investigation of the structure‘s behaviour under the given loads.
Section III covers nuclear components, including pressure vessels, piping, pumps, valves,
supports, core support structures, pressure relief, containment systems for spent fuel and
high-level waste transport packaging, and concrete components. Section VIII division-2 deals
with alternate rules for design and construction of pressure vessels. As mentioned earlier,
these design codes (Section III, VIII-2 etc) provide a Design by Analysis, (DBA) route. The
ASME code offers two routes to DBA, the so-called elastic route and an inelastic route. Most
of the DBA guidelines given in various codes are essentially based on elastic analysis. The
inelastic route suggests the limit analysis. Rules were developed to help the designer guard
against various failure modes. Different types of stresses were found to have different safety
implications. Also, the location of the stress is very important. To satisfy the above
requirements, one needs to perform a detailed analysis.
Finite element analysis is no longer a magical tool hiding in research labs. Many engineers
and technologists now have access to it. But analyzing the stresses found in a
component/vessel is still a difficult task. Running a finite element model and looking for the
highest stresses is not adequate.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4.16 Limit Load Analysis
The conventional route for design as per ASME code (using DBA approach) is by checking
the stress limits. This is achieved by performing an elastic finite element analysis, where the
stresses are evaluated at all/critical locations of the component. These stresses are categorized
as primary membrane, primary local membrane, bending, secondary etc. Allowable values
are available for each category of stresses thus evaluated. The design is safe if all the limits
are satisfied as per the Hopper diagram provided in the ASME code. This procedure is little
bit time consuming,cumbersome and needs expertise. Alternatively code (ASME) also
provide options that in case the stress limits are not satisfied one of the following alternates
can be used to qualify the design.
(a) By performing a limit analysis
(b) By performing a plastic analysis or
(c) By performing an experimental stress analysis
(a) and (b) above are generally performed by conducting a detailed non-linear finite element
analysis of the component. By performing a FE analysis, the limit load is evaluated. If this
limit load is less than 2/3rd of the specified design pressure and mechanical loads, then the
design is assumed to be safe.
Background and Introduction to Design by Analysis

This part introduces the two most widely known and used methods of designing pressure
vessel components. These methods are namely Design by formula and Design by analysis
(DBA).
Design by formula (DBF)
Design by formula uses formula and rules for calculating basic dimensions for pressure
vessel components. This method is widely used in pressure vessel design and the bulk of any
pressure vessel code is concerned with this approach. It is simple and has been used for many
years with long experience in various applications. The formulae, rules and tables have
evolved over many decades and represent a safe approach to pressure vessel design, where
applicable. The method ensures that the component is safe against all possible failure modes
such as gross plastic deformation, collapse, ratchetting, brittle fracture and buckling. Some
formulae and rules are based on elastic analysis, some are based on shakedown concepts and
others are based on limit load analysis.
Although relatively the DBF approach is simple and safe to use, it has some built in
limitations. Formulae and rules are only available for geometries and rules that are covered
by the respective standard. This poses some limits on the designer as non-standard geometries
and loadings cannot be properly analysed. Furthermore the results obtained by DBF have a
____________________________________________________________________________________________
tendency to be over-conservative. This results in designs that may not be competitive and
economically viable.
Design by Analysis (DBA)
Design by analysis uses stress analysis directly. The maximum allowable load for the design
is determined by performing a detailed stress analysis and checking against specified design
criteria. Design by analysis can also be used for calculating the component thicknesses for
pressure vessel components.
In the early days of DBA, the analysis methods were focused on linear elastic stress analysis.
This is mainly so because inelastic analysis required considerable computer resources which
at the time were not present. However as computers became more powerful inelastic analysis
has become more popular. The DBA procedures were developed with the assumption that
shell discontinuity analysis would be used for the calculations. Today the Finite Element
Method is the most popular approach and this can present some challenges as we shall see.
Gross structural discontinuity
Gross structural discontinuity is a geometrical structural or material discontinuity which

affects the stress or strain distribution across the entire wall thickness over a region of
significant size. Common examples are
 nozzle to cylinder junction
 shell to head junction
Fig: 4.26: An example of a gross structural discontinuity showing a head cylinder

junction
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig: 4.27: An example of a local structural discontinuity showing a weld toe in a butt
weld
Local structural discontinuity
Local structural discontinuity is a discontinuity which affects the stress or strain distribution
quite locally across part of the wall thickness. The main effect of a notch is to produce a non-
linearity in the stress distribution. Common examples for local stress discontinuity are welds.
Normally the word local is a somewhat subjective term. The weld toe and any undercutting
are also considered as local discontinuities.
Nominal stress
Generally, is referred to as the stress value obtained by applying standard strength of

materials formulae. Nominal stress is found at a distance outside the effects of local or gross
structural discontinuities.
Structural stress
Structural stress is a linearly distributed stress across the section thickness. It includes both
nominal stresses and the effects of gross structural discontinuities. However it does not
include the effects of local structural discontinuities.
The structural stress, ss can be broken down into two parts, membrane stress and bending
stress.
Membrane stress, m
Membrane stress is the component of the structural stress that is uniformly distributed and
equal to the average value of stress across the section thickness
Bending stress, b
Bending stress is the component of the structural stress that varies linearly across the section
thickness.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig: 4.28: Structural stress components

Notch stress
Notch stress is the total stress located at the base of a notch. The notch stress combines the
structural stress together with the effects of a stress raiser. Examples of notch stresses are the
stress at weld toes and at local structural discontinuities. The additional stress to the structural
part that forms the notch stress is referred to as the non-linear part of the stress distribution,
nlp
Fig: 4.29: Notch stress components

Yield Criteria
The yield stress sy, the point at which the stress-strain relationship that is no longer
proportional, is generally obtained from test specimens under uniaxial loading.
Fig: 4.30: The multiaxial stress tensor in the x,y,z components and the principal stresses
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Real structures and components are usually in a state of multiaxial stress systems. To be able
to determine the maximum load that can be applied before the onset of plasticity it is
therefore necessary to have a means of relating the multiaxial stresses to the one-dimensional
yield stress value. This is achieved by using what are called multiaxial yield criteria.
Two multiaxial yield criteria commonly used for ductile materials are the Tresca criterion and
the von Mises criterion. These are also frequently used in pressure vessels codes of practice.
Yielding criteria are usually conveniently expressed in terms of principal stresses, since they
completely determine the general state of stress.
Tresca yield criterion

This theory is based on the assumption that yielding is governed by the maximum principal
shear stress. For a general three dimensional stress system the yield criterion is represented
by the following equation.
1
max ( 1 ,  2 ,  3 , )   y
2
but from strength of materials principles,

1 1 1
 1  ( 2   3 ) ;  2  ( 3   1 ) ;  3  ( 1   2 )
2 2 2
Rearranging gives, the Tresca yield criterion as,

max  1   2 ,  2   3 ,  3   1  y
Therefore in this case the material behaviour will remain elastic provided that the
maximum difference between any two principal stresses is less than the yield stress, sy.
In the ASME Boiler and pressure vessel code the term
max   1   2 ,  2   3 ,  3   1  is referred to as the Stress Intensity, S
Stress intensity S = max   1   2 ,  2   3 ,  3   1 

On the other hand in the European Code EN13445, the term
max   1   2 ,  2   3 ,  3   1  is referred to as the Equivalent stress, eq
Equivalent stress, eq = max   1   2 ,  2   3 ,  3   1 

Though the two codes use different names the definition is the same.
Therefore the Tresca criteria become;
S  y or  eq   y (According to the code of standard being used)
Von Mises yield criterion

This theory is based on the assumption that yielding is governed by the maximum shear strain
energy component. For a general three dimensional stress system the yield criterion is
represented by the following equation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
1
 12   2 2   3 2  y
2
but since
1 1 1
 1  ( 2   3 ) ;  2  ( 3   1 ) ;  3  ( 1   2 )
2 2 2
then rearranging gives,
1
( 1   2 ) 2  ( 2   3 ) 2  ( 3   1 ) 2   y
2
Similar to the case of the Tresca criterion, the equivalent stress can also be expressed in terms
of the von Mises criterion
1
 eq  ( 1   2 ) 2  ( 2   3 ) 2  ( 3   1 ) 2
2
This definition of the equivalent stress is used in the European code EN13445.
Rearranging the above equation becomes
 eq   1 2   2 2   3 2   1 2   2 3   3 1
And the von Mises criterion becomes;

 eq   y
The Tresca‘s yield surface lies inside the von Mises one. Therefore it can be said that the
Tresca‘s yield criterion is conservative when compared to the von Mises yield criterion.
For most ductile steels the von Mises criterion fits the experimental data more closely than
Tresca‘s criteria. But usually Tresca‘s yield criterion is simpler to use in elementary/manual
calculations.
4.17 Limit and plastic collapse loads
According to the design codes, two types of stress analysis may be used to guard against
gross plastic deformation: elastic analysis and elastic-plastic analysis.
 When elastic analysis is used, the allowable load is calculated indirectly by

partitioning the elastic stress into primary, secondary and peak categories and limiting
the primary stress to a specified allowable value.
 When design is based on elastic-plastic analysis, the allowable load is determined
directly from the elastic-plastic response of the vessel. Two types of inelastic analysis
may be used; limit analysis and plastic analysis.
Gross plastic deformation is associated with excessive plastic deformation of the vessel under
the application of a load. Unless the load is limited, this ultimately leads to plastic collapse or
rupture of the vessel. The form of plastic collapse mechanism differs between structural
____________________________________________________________________________________________
configurations. In some cases, the entire volume of the structure experiences plastic
deformation at failure. In other cases only local regions of the body experience plastic
straining with the rest remaining elastic.
Limit analysis
Limit load is the maximum load that a structure can safely carry. It's the load at which the
structure is in a state of incipient plastic collapse. As the load on the structure increases, the
displacements increases linearly in the elastic range till the load attain the yield value.
Beyond this, the load-displacement response becomes non-linear and the plastic or
irreversible part of the displacement increases steadily with the applied load. Plasticity
spreads throughout the solid and at the limit load, the plastic zone becomes very large and the
displacements become unbounded and the component is said to have collapsed.
Limit analysis assumes an ideal elastic-perfectly plastic (or rigid-perfectly plastic) material
model and small deformation theory. When perfect plasticity and small deformation theory
are assumed, the load carrying capacity of the structure is limited by equilibrium
considerations. A plot of applied load against resulting deformation for a hypothetical limit
analysis is shown in the Fig. 4.1.
Initially, the structural response is linear elastic but as yield is exceeded regions of plastic
strain develop and the response becomes non-linear. As loading continues, equal increments
of load cause increasingly greater plastic deformation. The plastic zone expands to equilibrate
the internal and external stresses with the externally applied forces until a stage is reached
when no further expansion of plastic zones can occur to accommodate the applied load
increase. This is called the limit load.
At the limit load, the load deformation curve becomes horizontal: dP/d=0. The structure can
no longer maintain equilibrium with the external loads and unlimited plastic deformation
occurs. The structure fails by loss of equilibrium at the limit load of the structure.
Real structures, however may behave rather differently to the limit analysis model in two
ways: the material may exhibit post-yield strain hardening and also large deformations may
occur.
Plastic Limit Analysis
To set the background for plastic limit analysis, it is helpful to consider in general terms the
behavior of an elastic-plastic solid or structure subjected to mechanical loading. The solution
to an internally-pressurized elastic-perfectly plastic cylinder provides a representative
example.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig: 4.31: Cylinder under internal pressure
The solution shows that

1. The vessel first yields at a critical internal pressure
Y  a 2 

Pa  1
3  b 2 

The material first reaches yield at the interior of the cylinder r=a.
2. If the pressure is increased beyond yield, a plastic zone (shown in Fig-10)
spreads through the cylinder. The expression for the size of the plastic zone is
a bit difficult but the solution for a cylinder with b/a=2 is shown graphically
above. When the pressure reaches about 0.8Y, the entire cylinder reaches
yield.
3. The displacement at the interior boundary of the cylinder r=a is plotted in the
Fig. 4.32 again for a cylinder with b/a=2. We see that the displacement
approaches infinity as the pressure approaches a critical value. This pressure
corresponds to that required to spread the plastic zone throughout the cylinder.
When the pressure reaches this value, the cylinder is said to collapse –
displacements become unbounded.
Fig: 4.32: Cylinder under internal pressure – variation of parameters
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig: 4.33: Cylinder under internal pressure – variation of parameters

All elastic-perfectly plastic structures will exhibit similar behavior. In particular
 An inelastic solid will reach yield at some critical value of applied load.
 If the load exceeds yield, a plastic region starts to spread through the solid. As
an increasing area of the solid reaches yield, the displacements in the structure
progressively increase.
 At a critical load, the plastic region becomes large enough to allow
unconstrained plastic flow in the solid. The load cannot be increased beyond
this point.
In a plasticity calculation, often the two most interesting results are (a) the critical load where
the solid starts to yield; and (b) the critical load where it collapses. Of course, we don‘t need
to solve a plasticity problem to find the yield point – we only need the elastic fields. In many
design problems (especially those involving cyclic loading) this is all we need, since plastic
flow must be avoided more often than not. But there are situations where some plasticity can
be tolerated in a structure or component; and there are even some situations where it‘s
desirable (e.g. in designing crumple zones in cars). In this situation, we usually would like to
know the collapse load for the solid. It would be really nice to find some way to get the
collapse load without having to solve the full boundary value problem.
This is the motivation for plastic limit analysis. The limit theorems of plasticity provide a
quick way to estimate collapse loads, without needing any lengthy calculations. In fact,
collapse loads are often much easier to find than the yield point.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig: 4.34: Load against deformation - limit load and strain hardening
Plastic analysis
As strain-hardening materials can support stresses greater than yield, plastic deformation can
continue for loads above the theoretical limit load of the structure without violating
equilibrium. Changes in structural configuration as loading progresses can also affect the load
carrying capacity of the vessel. If large structural deformations occur the structural load-path
may change. This can increase or decrease the load carrying capacity of the vessel.
In design by analysis terminology, elastic-plastic analysis including strain hardening and
large deformation effects is called plastic analysis. A hypothetical plastic analysis load-
deformation curve is compared with a limit analysis curve for the same vessel in the Fig. 4.34
as shown below.
A significant problem in elastic-plastic Design by Analysis is that of defining a ―plastic load‖
to be used as the basis for calculating the allowable static load for the vessel, in the same way
that the limit load does in limit analysis. In practice, this is done by applying what is called a
criterion of plastic collapse, although the phrase ―plastic collapse‖ is in fact a misnomer, as
the purpose of these criteria is to define the load at which plastic deformation becomes
excessive, and not when actual physical collapse occurs. Throughout the years a large
number of plastic collapse criteria have been proposed in the literature, amongst them are the
tangent intersection method, the 1% Plastic strain pressure, the twice elastic slope pressure,
the twice elastic deformation pressure, and the 0.2% offset strain pressure. Here it must be
said that some common pressure vessel codes have removed these criteria of plastic collapse
in their latest revision and replaced them by what are called direct route methods.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
P TI
Applied Load/Pressure
Displacement
Fig. 4.35: Tangent Intersection Method
Estimation of collapse load from load-deflection diagram
As mentioned earlier even though there are many methods given in the literature, the
following methods viz. tangent intersection method, 1% plastic strain method, twice elastic
deformation method, twice elastic slope method only are discussed in the following
paragraphs,
Tangent Intersection Method (TIM)
A plastic load has been defined by drawing tangents to the elastic and plastic parts of the load
with deflection curve as shown in Fig. 4.35. The load at the intersection of two tangents is
taken as plastic load, denoted by Pti. If the load deflection response is truly of limit type,
tangent intersection method becomes limit pressure.
The one percent of plastic strain Method

Here the plastic load is defined at an equivalent plastic strain of one percent. This method not
only depends on the material assumed but more significantly on the geometry and rate of
strain hardening.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The twice elastic deformation Method (TED)

The load at which the deflection/strain reaches the twice the value of the elastic deflection or
elastic strain at the first yield load (P y) which is define as the load for which the material of
the structure first yields at the most highly stressed point. This is shown in Fig. 4.36. This
method depends on first yield load, where the experimental determination always subjected
to some error.
P 2Y
P2Y
PY
Y Y Displacement
Fig. 4.36: Twice elastic deformation method
The twice elastic slope Method (TES)

A load deflection curve is plotted with the load as the ordinate and deflection as the abscissa.
Twice the elastic slope definition is much popular and this is shown in Fig. 4.37. If ‗‗ is the
angle that the linear part of the load deflection curve makes with the ordinate, then, a line is
drawn at an angle,  = tan-1(2tan ) with the ordinate. Thus, the collapse load is the load at
which this line intersects the load-deflection curve. This is recommended by ASME Boiler &
Pressure vessel code section -III.
50
Limit Load
40
30
Twice Elastic Slope Line

tan 
20
tan 
10
tan tan 
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Displacement
Fig. 4.37: Twice elastic slope method
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Depending on the particular structural configuration, the plastic instability load may be
dependent on the load path leading to collapse. Hence the selection of the collapse load for a
real structure requires careful interpretation of the load-deflection relations. As mentioned
earlier, the plastic collapse load can be calculated by using any of the three normally used
methods Viz. tangent intersection method (TIM), twice elastic deflection (TED) and twice
elastic slope (TES). The TIM is recommended by Griffith and Robertson et al. But defining
the tangent point in this method is subjective. The TED method is not always easy to use, as
the exact displacement at initial departure from linearity is sometimes ill defined. TES
method is generally used in the literature for evaluating plastic collapse moment, due to its
ease of application. Also TES results are reproducible. ASME design code recommends this
method.
4.18 Procedure for Limit Load Analysis
Following procedure may be used for conducting a limit load analysis using finite element
method,
(a) Develop a finite element model of the component.
(b) In the non-linear analysis invoke material non-linearity. The material non-
linearity considered here should be elastic perfectly plastic as shown in the following
Fig. 4.38.
Stress
Strain
Fig. 4.38: Elastic Perfectly plastic material model
(c) Activate geometric linearity. i.e. small displacement

(d) Apply the load in steps – e.g. total load is applied in, say 100 steps. This is
tricky situation, where one has to consider different options (load steps) to get
____________________________________________________________________________________________
the required convergence. It is common in non-linear analysis, where one has

to re-do the whole analysis if the load step is not considered properly.
(e) Identify the location (node) where the maximum response (say displacement)
is expected.
(f) Perform a non-linear FE analysis
(g) For each incremental load, plot load (or moment) with displacement (or
rotation) in a x-y graph. A typical load-displacement (moment-rotation) graph
is shown in Fig. 4.39 below.
(h) From this load-deflection graph calculate limit load. There are many methods
mentioned in the literature to evaluate limit load. ASME recommends a
method called ―twice elastic slope method‖. This method is shown in Fig. 4.40
below.
1400
1200
1000
2
Pressure Kg/cm
800
600
400
200
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Displacement, mm
Fig. 4.39: A typical Load (pressure)-displacement curve
50
Limit Load
40
2
Pressure, Kg/mm
30
Twice Elastic Slope Line

tan 
20
tan 
10
tan tan 
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Displacement, mm
Fig. 4.40: Twice-elastic slope method
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(i) If the limit load thus evaluated from FEM is less than 2/3 rd of the specified
design pressure and mechanical loads, then the design is assumed to be safe.
4.19 Practical Application of Limit Load Analysis based on Field experience
Limit Load is the ultimate load combination that a structure can stand before violating the
criteria. By "criteria" it means both "loosing functionality" (by overcoming limit stress in
some points or by deforming too much with respect to the design intent), and "collapsing":
these are two mandatory cases to analyze separately. The concept is described in any norm
which uses the Limit-States Analysis instead of the Allowable-Stresses Analysis (e.g.
ASME/EN13445).
It was required to analyse a pipe elbow casting designed as per ASME B&PV Code, Section
VIII, Div 2. The traditional approach (DBA) would be to use stress linearization on an elastic
analysis for stress categorization. However, since the elbow was thick-walled relative to the
radius, stress linearization can be non-conservative because the stress distribution is non-
linear. So in order to qualify the component, the limit load analysis method was used. The
limit load analysis eliminates the need for stress categorization because it is a pass-fail
criterion. The material definition is elastic-perfectly plastic.
The basis for the limit load is straightforward. A value of 1.5 is applied to the desired load
(i.e. design pressure+static head+dead weight). Recall that a plastic hinge is formed in a
rectangular cross-section beam with an elastic-perfectly plastic material when the moment is
1.5 times the moment required for initial yield. The details can be found from any continuum
mechanics textbook (in the section on Beams).
Did the analysis model converge at the desired load (i.e.1.5*Design Load)? If yes, Section
5.2 of ASME section VIII Division-2 (protection against plastic collapse) is satisfied. If not,
Section 5.2, Protection against plastic Collapse is NOT satisfied.
Advances in the capabilities of computers have enabled the method, since the limit load
analysis will take longer to run than an elastic stress analysis. However, post-processing
effort is reduced to near zero. Also, there is no question about whether or not the stress
categorization line (stress cutline) is in the limiting location.
4.20 Example of limit load analysis of pressure vessel with nozzle
In order to give an idea how one can go about to perform limit analysis using finite element
method, some practical problems are solved. The objective here is to show the steps involved
for the analysis. Some practical problems are solved here, which includes SOLID elements. It
may be noted that this procedure for limit load analysis remains same for any general purpose
finite element software used.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Limit pressure of pressure vessel with nozzle
Vessel with hemispherical head

Vessel inner diameter: 1000 mm
Thickness: 30 mm
Nozzle inner diameter: 100 mm
Nozzle thickness: 35 mm
Loading: Internal pressure
Fig. 4.41: Symmetric model of the vessel with the nozzle used for limit load analysis
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 4.42: Material stress-strain curve used in the FE analysis
Fig. 4.43: FE mesh of the pressure vessel with nozzle
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 4.44: Time vs. radial displacement result
Total pressure: 0.2 MPa per time step of 1 second

Time step at which divergence occurred: 69
Limit pressure: 69x0.2 = 13.8 Mpa
Allowable design pressure: 13.8 / 1.5 = 9.2 Mpa (Ans)
Plastic Collapse analysis
Fig. 4.45: Material stress-strain data for strain-hardening material behavior
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 4.46: Calculation of collapse pressure from FE analysis
Total pressure: 0.2 MPa per time step of 1 second

Plastic collapse pressure: 14.48 Mpa
Allowable design pressure: 14.48 / 1.5 = 9.65 Mpa (Ans)
Allowable design pressure (according to limit load solution): 13.8 / 1.5 = 9.2 Mpa (Ans)
Chapter-5 & 6
Code rules for protection against cyclic

loading in ASME Section III NB
Dr. Suneel K. Gupta,

RD&DG , BARC
Tel-25595174
Chapter 5&6: Code rules for protection against cyclic loading in ASME Section III NB
________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
In designing of class-1 pressurized nuclear power plant components, four different types
of failure modes are considered for safe nuclear pressure vessel operation: 1) bursting and
gross distortion from a single application; 2) progressive distortion from cyclic
application; 3) crack initiation from fatigue damage from cyclic loading; and 4)
instability. The intent of the design analysis requirements in Section III NB is to provide
suitable design margin against these failure modes. In this lecture note, design limits and
their theory background of the failure mode 2) and 3) of above would be covered.
If proper safeguards are provided against environment and the static loads are limited to
less than limit strength of the component then theoretically it should never fail. However,
if the same component is subjected to a cyclic, repeated or fluctuating load, it may fail at
stress levels less than that required to cause failure under static conditions. This
phenomenon is known as FATIGUE and is a common source of failure of components.
Generally speaking, fatigue is a progressive failure of a component subjected to repeated,
cyclic or fluctuating loads.
Broadly speaking, at design stage, assurance of fatigue resistance involves efforts in
design, fabrication/manufacture and Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) which
provides reasonable assurance that predicted fatigue life will be greater than design life
under anticipated cyclic loads. While at the operation stage, assurance of fatigue
resistance is to guarantee Fitness-For-Service of a component and it involves regular and
reliable In-Service Inspection (ISI) for detecting the cracks (which could have initiated
during operation of plant) and prediction of crack growth life if cracks are detected,
repair/replacement technologies if detected cracks cannot be tolerated and on-line
monitoring for assessing actual fatigue damage or crack growth.
Fatigue resistant design, of components/structures, plays important role in all types of
industries viz., automobile industry, space/aerospace industry, offshore/shipping industry,
power plant industry etc. In the present lecture, thrust will be on principles, guidelines
and strategies adopted for fatigue resistant design of Nuclear Power Plant components
such as pressure vessels, piping etc. This lecture note will cover codal guidelines usually
adopted for protection of Nuclear Power Plant Components against failures caused by
cyclic loading and arrive at fatigue resistant design of as per ASME section III NB.
General Background
In order to guarantee the target design life it is essential to provide adequate resistance
against fatigue failure. This is done by following recommendations of well-proven and
widely used design codes / guidelines and lessons from past experiences. In India the
most popularly used design code, for NPP components, is American Society of
________________________________________________________________________
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler & Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code-Section III.
However, for Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) components the French design code ‗RCC-
MR‘ is also used. In case of FBRs the operating temperature is about 550 oC and hence
consideration of ‗Creep‘ is essential. The present lecture note would cover the fatigue
resistant design requirements of components operating up to about 300 oC and as per
ASME B&PV-Section III NB only.
It is well known that the prevention of structural failure of any piece of equipment
involves much more than just the choice of a safe value of design stress. At the
beginning of last century, catastrophic boiler explosions in the United States has
happened in large numbers and a major factor in correcting this situation was the
publication in 1914 of the ASME Boiler Code. This Code established the principle that
the membrane stress produced by pressure in the wall of a vessel should not be allowed
to exceed one-fifth of the ultimate strength of the material, as determined by a tensile
test. The success of this simple requirement was so great that, for a while, people tended
to forget that other requirements were also needed if optimum use of material were to be
made. Recognition of these more sophisticated requirements did occur, and resulted in
many papers on thermal stress, creep, cyclic loading, corrosion, stress concentration and
limit analysis. The importance of these secondary effects was given formal recognition
with the publication in 1963 of Section III (Nuclear Vessels) of the Boiler Code and,
later, Division 2 of Section VIII. These newer Codes recognize that secondary and
localized stresses can be calculated and have higher allowable limits than those assigned
to primary stresses. This publication first introduced the design-by-analysis concept for
nuclear vessel design. In comparison to the nonnuclear vessels code, a lower factor of
safety on pressure design is incorporated. To justify the lower factor of safety, detailed
stress analysis and an evaluation demonstrating suitability of a component for cyclic
application of loads and thermal conditions is required. Different categories of stress are
assigned different allowable values. Following sections gives cyclic loading sources,
theory of failure, stress classification and material consideration involved in a component
deign.
Source of Cyclic loads

The Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) components experience variety of loads such as:
(a) Pressure: operating pressure is high (70 bars to 150 bars, depending on the
type of nuclear reactor).
(b) Thermal Cycles: generated during startup / shutdown. During cold
shutdown the temperature is ‗Room Temperature‘ and increases to about
300 oC, at full power. Startup / shutdown operations induce thermal
gradients which in turn induce thermal stresses.
________________________________________________________________________
(c) Sustained Thermal Stresses: due to piping expansion stresses or due to

sustained temperature gradients or due to mismatch in thermal expansion
at dissimilar joints etc.
(d) Self-Weight (or Dead Weight): self-weight of the components.
(e) Vibration loads
(f) Earthquake loads
(g) Wind Loads (only for those which are outside the Reactor Containment)
(h) Dynamic Loads: due to water/steam hammer, hydrodynamic blow-down
loads arising out of postulated accident scenario etc.
Since power plants never operate continuously for the entire lifetime hence all the loads,
except the self-weight, are cyclic in nature. The variation in loading (cyclic loads) is
taken into account in designing a component. The above mentioned loads are further
classification into following classes
(a) Design Loads: such as design pressure, design temperature and design
mechanical loads.
(b) Service Loads: these are the loads associated with different service and
operations conditions
(c) Test Loads: these are the loads which occur during Hydro tests etc.
Based on the frequency of occurrence, Service Loads are further classified in to four
levels as:
(a) Level A Service Loads (Normal Operating Conditions): These are the
loads which occurs as a results of day to day service and operations.
Components must withstand these loads without any damage & no
inspection warranted. The frequency of occurrence of loads considered in
this level is up to 1 per year per reactor.
(b) Level B Service Loads (Upset Conditions): Components must withstand
these loadings without damage requiring repairs. The frequency of
occurrence of loads considered in this level is from 1 to 10 -2 per year per
reactor.
(c) Level C Service Loads (Emergency Conditions): Permits large
deformation in the areas of structural discontinuity which may necessitate
the thorough inspection followed by repair if required. The frequency of
occurrence of loads considered in this level is from 10 -2 to 10-4 per year
per reactor.
________________________________________________________________________
(d) Level D Service Loads (Faulted Conditions): Permits gross deformation

with loss of dimensional stability. Component may be out of service for
repairs. The frequency of occurrence of loads considered in this level is
from 10-4 to 10-6 per year per reactor.
The level A and level B constitutes loads during normal service loading and the
components will operate without any gross plastic deformation. In level C and level D the
gross plastic deformation are allowed however the structural integrity (integrity of
primary boundary) in ensured. Service Loadings of Level C and Level-D are not
considered in fatigue analysis.
Theory of failure / Combining the multiaxial Stresses

Owing to complex geometry and complex loading the material of component/equipment
see multiaxial stresses. The multiaxial stresses components could be evaluated by
performing FE analyses. For simple geometries / loadings, handbook formulae could be
used.
Suitable theory of failures used to combine the multiaxial stresses in an equivalent, which
then used for failure assessment along with material uniaxial test property. Following
theory of failure are popular in design codes
Maximum Principle Stress theory (Rankine): According to the maximum principal
stress theory, failure occurs when one of the three principal stresses reaches a stress value
of elastic limit as determined from a uniaxial tension test. This theory is meaningful for
brittle fracture situations.
Maximum Shear Stress Theory (Tresca): According to the maximum shear stress
theory, the maximum shear equals the shear stress at the elastic limit as determined from
the uniaxial tension test. Here the maximum shear stress is one half the difference
between the largest (say 1) and the smallest (say 3) principal stresses. This is also
known as the Tresca criterion, which states that yielding takes place when
________________________________________________________________________
Distortion Energy Theory (Von-Mises): The distortion energy theory considers failure
to have occurred when the distortion energy accumulated in the component under stress
reaches the elastic limit as determined by the distortion energy in a uniaxial tension test.
This is also known as the von Mises criterion, which states that yielding will take place
when
0.5
It is generally agreed that the von Mises criterion is better suited for common pressure
vessels, the ASME Code chose to use the Tresca criterion as a framework for the design
by analysis procedure for two reasons: (a) it is more conservative, and (b) it is considered
easier to apply. However, now that computers are used for the calculations, the von Mises
expression is a continuous function and is easily adapted for calculations, whereas the
Tresca expression is discontinuous
In order to avoid dividing both the calculated and the yield stress by two, the ASME
Code defines new terms called stress intensity, and stress difference. The stress
differences (Sij) are simply the algebraic differences of the principal stresses, 1, 2, and
3, so that
The stress intensity, S, is the maximum absolute value of the stress difference
In terms of the stress intensity, S, Tresca criterion then reduces to
Throughout the design by analysis procedure in the ASME Code stress intensities are
used.
Stress classification
The stresses generated in the material are classified as primary and secondary stress
based on their significance in the material failure, their self-limiting characteristic.
Primary stress is any normal stress or a shear stress developed by an imposed loading
which is necessary to satisfy the laws of equilibrium of external and internal forces and
________________________________________________________________________
moments. The basic characteristic of a primary stress is that it is not self-limiting.

Primary stresses which considerably exceed the yield strength will result in failure or, at
least, in gross distortion. Such stress increase in direct proportion of applied load. The
state of stress load controlled. A thermal stress is not classified as a primary stress.
Example of primary stresses are given in Fig.1.
b) Cylinder under c) Bar in bending

a) Bar in Tension internal pressure
Fig. 1: Primary stress examples
T2
T1
 mm
 mm b) Pipe/Vessel under
Temperature Gradient c) bar in bending
a) Bar in Tension
Fig. 2: Secondary stress examples

Secondary stress is a normal stress or a shear stress developed by the constraint of
adjacent material or by self-constraint of the structure. The basic characteristic of a
secondary stress is that it is self-limiting. Local yielding and minor distortions can satisfy
the conditions which cause the stress to occur and failure from one application of the
stress is not to be expected. Such stress need not increase in proportion to loading. The
state of stress is displacement or strain controlled. Such stress originates due to thermal,
or strain / displacement controlled loading. In case of indeterminate structure they may
arise due to mechanical loading also, e.g., in Head to Vessel Junction or Near the Nozzle
Opening Zones (Gross Structural Discontinuity) or near small attachments (Local
Structural discontinuity). Example of secondary stresses are given in Fig.2.
________________________________________________________________________
Peak stress is that increment of stress which is additive to the primary plus secondary
stresses by reason of local discontinuities or local thermal stress including the effects, if
any, of stress concentrations. The basic characteristic of a peak stress is that it does not
cause any noticeable distortion and is objectionable only as a possible source of a fatigue
crack or a brittle fracture.
The primary stress is generally limited to yield limit of the material since they can lead to
failure in single application. The secondary stresses have self-limiting characteristic,
hence higher values can be allowed. However cyclic secondary stresses are objectionable
since they can lead to failures by plastic cycling, ratcheting, fatigue and their
combinations.
The primary stress limits are intended to prevent plastic deformation and to provide a
nominal factor of safety on the ductile burst pressure.
The primary plus secondary stress limits are intended to prevent excessive plastic
deformation leading to incremental collapse, and to validate the application of elastic
analysis when performing the fatigue evaluation.
The peak stress limit is intended to prevent fatigue failure as a result of cyclic loadings.
Material
The general requirements of materials accepted by ASME B&PV Section-III are:
(a) High Ductility: they should have adequate percentage elongation (%El) and
percentage Reduction in Area (%RA).
(b) High Toughness: the minimum Charpy V-Notch (CVN) energy should be 50
ft-lb with 35 mils lateral expansion at RT NDT + 60oF. [RTNDT is reference
temperature for Nil Ductility Transition (NDT)]. The minimum operating
temperature is always kept > RTNDT + margin.
(c) Adequate resistance to neutron embrittlement, in case of reactor core
components.
(d) Compatibility with environment
i. Corrosion resistance
ii. Resistance to ageing owing to thermal embrittlement, sensitization etc.
iii. Adequate resistance to stress corrosion cracking and other local
corrosion mechanisms.
(e) Lessons from past experiences
The deformation behavior of material under action of external loading, is characterized
by their stress-strain curve (Constitutive relation), an example it, is given in following
________________________________________________________________________
figure. The relation between true stress-strain with engineering stress-strain is given
below.
Fig. 3: Typical stress-train curve

 = ln(1 +1) ;  = 1 (1+ 1 )
 : True Strain, : True Stress, 1 : Engineering Strain , 1 : Engineering Stress
True Stress-Strain Curve Fit can be expressed as power law as given below
 = C1n + C2
C1 : Strength Coefficient. n = Strain Ha1rdening Exponent
As discussed earlier the material selected for the nuclear equipment are enough ductile
and tough and in other words, they have enough strain hardening characteristic. However
for deriving the design limits, application of limit design theory associated with by some
engineering judgment and some conservative simplifications was employed and hence
material behavior is taken as elastic-perfectly plastic.
Component design
The component design is done to safeguard against different modes of failure. The modes
of failure such as rupture, plastic collapse / instability, excessive plastic deformation,
excessive elastic deformation (or elastic buckling instability), non-ductile fracture (or
brittle fracture), ductile fracture etc. directly govern the component sizes / thickness. The
modes of failure such as high strain or low cycle fatigue, cyclic strain accumulation (or
ratcheting), stress corrosion cracking etc. govern the life of the component. Of course, the
safeguard against life in turn may affect the size /thickness of the component. The
material deformation behavior and design rules to prevent ratcheting, plastic cycling and
fatigue crack initiation under cyclic loading are discussed in next sections:
________________________________________________________________________
Deformation behaviour of Gross Sections under cyclic loading

To understand material‘s deformation behaviour, elastic shake down, plastic cycling,
plastic shakedown, and ratcheting behavior under the primary and secondary cyclic load
lets us assume that:
(a) The material‘s - behaviour as elastic perfectly plastic in both tension and
compression and material‘s strain hardening is not considered. The assumption will lead
to conservative design.
(b) The Bauschinger effect (or kinematic hardening) which is usually observed in most
metals is assumed to be present in its full effect and hence the size of the yield surface
(range of elastic behaviour) remains constant as twice the yield stress (2y). This effect
is described graphically in following figure. The actual response of the material to cyclic
loading is complex and in the form of hysteresis loop which will be discussed later.
Fig. 4: Idealization to material behavior to elastic perfectly plastic stress-strain
Fig. 5: Kinematic hardening behavior of material under cyclic loading

Following section will discuss the elastic shake down, plastic cycling, plastic shakedown,
and ratcheting concepts with examples.
________________________________________________________________________
Elastic shake down

Consider an example of mechanical displacement (secondary) loading where a rod is
stretched and contracted axially as shown figures below. The material‘s stresses response
(since the displacement is applied) and is plotted in figure given below.
The rod is first stretched to displacement U2 such that it produces strain equal to the yield
strain y of material. The corresponding stress will be equal to yield stress. Any further
stretching will cause material to deform plastically without any increase in the stress
since the material is assumed to behave in elastic perfectly plastic manner. The rod is
further stretched to displacement U3 such that the additional stretching causes additional
plastic strain equal to the yield strain y. Hence total strain at point 3 becomes equal to
twice yield strain 2y. Now let us remove the imposed displacement to restore the initial
state (U=0) of bar. When such displacement load is removed / unloaded (U 4 = initial
state) the material response is elastic since the range of elastic behaviour is 2y. Any
further contraction will cause compressive plastic deformation of bar. When the bar is
stretched again by same amount (U5 = U3), there would not be any plastic deformations
and the material response will be elastic. This phenomenon is called Elastic Shakedown.
The elastic shake down behavior can also be explained for thermal loading. Consider a
system of four identical parallel bars fixed at one end and connected to a weightless
constraint at another end which forcefully keep the length of all bar equal, as shown in
figure below. All bars are initially at To temperature and have length L, thermal
expansion coefficient  and young‘s modulus as E.
Heating of outer bars (1 & 4) will cause tension in inner bars (2 & 3), since they will try
to prevent the free expansion of outer bars. As a result, equal compression will setup in
outer bar since net down ward force must be zero. The stress strain response of inner bar
as result of temperature loading to outer bar has been given in above figure. At certain
temperature rise (let us say T12) the tensile stress (ET12/2) in inner bars will become
equal to yield stress y. The corresponding strain in the inner bar will be equal to yield
strain y (T12/2=y). The inner bars has reached at tensile yield stress and will not resist
and further free expansion of outer bars due to further temperature increase. Hence, when
temperature of outer bars is further increase by T23 such that it will cause the inner bars
to plastically deform by amount T23 = y. At point 3, the total strain in inner bar
becomes equal to twice yield strain 2y. Now when the outer rods are cooled, such that to
reach to the initial state (strains), to temperature (T34/2 = -2y), the material response
remains elastic.
________________________________________________________________________
Pseudo Elastic Stress
 2y = 3Sm
2y
Loading history :
1-2 : Elastic loading

2
y 3,5
2-3 : Tension yielding
3-4 : Unloading
1

 2y 4-5, 5-6 .. Subsequent Elastic behavior
y
Elastic Shakedown Response
-y 4,
T12 = T2-T1
6 T23 = T3-T2
T34 = T3-T4
T45 = T5-T4
T3 T5
T2
Bar-1
Bar-2
Bar-3
Bar-4
T1
Constraint
T4 T6
Temperature Loading History
The above example of secondary load cycling shows that if the range of strains induce
due to applied loading, is restricted to twice of yield strain (2y) or equivalent pseudo
elastic stress of twice yield stress (2yE=2y = 3Sm) then the material will shakes down to
elastic behaviour in few number of load cycles. The accumulation of plastic strain is
absent since the subsequent material response is elastic. The critical parameter is strain
range () and its critical value is 2y. For combined primary and secondary loading,
elastic shake down occurs provided their combined range is restricted to twice of yield
stress. Here the primary load alone should not cause any yielding and restricted by
primary load limits.
This criteria have been adopted by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section
III NB to limit the primary plus secondary stress intensity range to ensure material
shake‘s down to elastic behavior in few cycles of cyclic loading.
________________________________________________________________________
Plastic cycling / Plastic shakedown

Plastic shakedown or plastic cyclic is the condition when for some cyclic loading the
material response is elastic plastic and their hysteresis loop (plot of stress versus strain)
does not changes with loading cycles. Or in simple word for each loading cycles the
stress strain response is identical. Plastic cycling takes place when the range of secondary
load exceeds twice yield strain then material undergoes plastic cycling.
 Heating: T12 = T2-T1 ; T23 = T3-T2
3 Cooling: T34 = T4-T3 ; T45 = T4-T5
y
Reheating Heating: T57 = T35
Loading history :
2 1-2 : Elastic loading
y 2-3 : Tension yielding
6 3-4 : Elastic unloading
2 3, 7,
 4-5 : Compression yielding
y
11 5-6-7-8-9-10-11 .. Subsequent Plastic Cyclic
1  2 3 
y y y
Plastic Cycling Response
5 4
To understand plastic cycling response let us considers the example of four identical bar
system again. Let increase the temperature of outer bar (T13 =T12 +T23) such that the
strain in the inner rods is equal to thrice yield strain (3y). In order to restore the initial
state (strain) of the bars the outer rods must be cooled such that they will cause
contraction equivalent to 3y strain. As mentioned earlier, the material exhibits the
Bauscinger effect and its elastic behavior cannot be more than 2y. When the outer bars
are cooled, initially material behaves elastically till the contraction/strain corresponds to
2y. The outer rods are cooled to temperature such that T34/2 = -2y or ET34/2 ==
2y. At this point, the stress in inner bars is equal to -y and stress in outer bars would be
y. On further cooling the material behaviour will be perfectly plastic, hence the decrease
of temperature T45 of outer bars will cause compressive plastic yielding (T45 = -y) of
inner bars to reach the initial state of strain. The subsequent load cycling with 3y strain
range will cause repetition of loop 3-4-5-6-3. This phenomenon is called as Plastic
Cycling. Plastic Cycling occurs under secondary loading, when the strain range exceeds
the 2y. Plastic cycling leads to gross low cycle fatigue damage and must be precluded.
Ratcheting / Incremental plastic collapse

Under certain combinations of steady state and cyclic loadings there is a possibility of
large distortions developing as the result of ratchet action; that is, the deformation
increases by a nearly equal amount for each cycle. The ratcheting is defined as
progressive incremental accumulation of plastic deformations/strains in preferential
________________________________________________________________________
direction when components is subjected to variations of mechanical or thermal or both

stress. The ratcheting can occur under the combined primary and secondary load when
the combined loading exceed yield limit of material and elastic or plastic shake down
does not takes place. In such situations the plastic strain will accumulate in each cycle by
small increment and leads to failure. Depending upon the source of cyclic loading, the
ratcheting can be further classified as thermal and mechanical ratcheting. To understand
the ratcheting let us consider again the system of four identical parallel bars fixed at one
end and connected to a constraint of finite weight at another end which forcefully keep
the length of all bar equal, as shown in figure below. There is some primary stress in each
bar as per the applied weight and cross section area of the bar. Now when outer bar are
subjected to cyclic temperature loading (T), then depending on primary stress
magnitude and secondary stress (pseudo) range, the all bars may undergo ratcheting,
where after every cycle there will be small increment in the length of bars. The plastic
cycling may also take place along with ratcheting under high secondary stress range.
Here, the damage would be combined due to ratcheting and plastic cycling
Bar-1
Bar-2
Bar-3
Bar-4
Constraint + Weight
The behavior of the material‘s gross section under cyclic loading can be explained by the
stress diagram (also known as Miller/ Bree diagram) given below which indicates the
strain behavior of the material as a function of the loading conditions. Depending upon
the stress regime, the material may undergo ratcheting, plastic cycling, shakedown, or
purely elastic behavior.
Different regions in above diagram are as given below:
1. Elastic Regime (No Yielding)
In this regime deformations resulting from the loads are elastic, and progressive
distortion does not occur from cyclic application of the load.
2. Shakedown Regime –
Plastic flow and growth would occur in initial few cycles only. Subsequent behavior on
further repetition of cyclic loading is linear elastic.
________________________________________________________________________
For Linear Temperature Distribution through the thickness the elastic shake down would
happen under following limits:
3. Plastic Cycling Regime (Non-ratcheting)

Plastic flow occurs on each cycle, but the progressive distortion increment decreases for
each subsequent cycle, and finally ceases.
For Linear Temperature Distribution through the thickness the plastic cycling (also
known as plastic shakedown) would happen under following limits:
4. Ratcheting Regime (Incremental Distortion)

Ratcheting is characterized by a monotonic plastic distortion resulting from the
successive application of cyclic loads superimposed upon a steady-state load. Plastic flow
occurs as the cyclic load is applied, followed by only a partial strain reversal during
unloading, resulting in a successive accumulation of plastic strain.
For Linear Temperature Distribution through the thickness the ratcheting (also known as
incremental plastic collapse) would happen when:
Where,
y = yield stress
T = maximum thermal stress calculated on an elastic basis.
m = maximum membrane stress due to pressure.
________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 6: BREE Diagram, Uniaxial Stress Regimes –Sustained Mean Stress (m) vs
Thermal Stress Range (T) for Linear Temperature Gradient
Similar to above, the thermal ratchet equation were also developed for the parabolic
temperature distribution. These criterion have been adopted by the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code Section III NB to limit the thermal loading in combination of
primary stress so that ratcheting can be precluded.
Design Limits to ensure "Shake Down" of gross sections

In ASME B&PV Sec. III NB, The primary plus secondary (P + Q) stress intensity limit is
intended to preclude the ratchet and to ensure accuracy in the fatigue analysis procedure.
If the P + Q limit is not met, NB presents an additional procedure for evaluating the
potential ratchet and defining a penalty factor for the fatigue analysis shall be used.
Limit on Primary-plus-secondary (P+Q) stress intensity (Elastic Shake Down)
The stresses in nominal regions (away from discontinuities like openings / nozzles,
thickness change, welds profile etc.) and nominal stresses at discontinuities shall be
limited to prevent gross fatigue damage.
________________________________________________________________________
Range of (P+Q)  3 Sm
i.e.,  (Pm + Pb + Q)  3 Sm
Pm = Primary General Membrane Stress, at a Section
Pb = Primary Bending Stress, at a Section
P = Primary Stress, at a section
Q = Nominal Secondary Stress, at a Section
Sm = Design Stress Intensity
= 2/3 of Sy or 1/3 of Su, whichever is less
Sy = Yield Strength of Material (see Fig.3)
Su = Ultimate Strength of Material (see Fig.3)
The primary stresses are those, which maintain direct equilibrium against external loads.
The secondary stresses are those, which are generated to maintain internal strain
compatibility. The sum Pm+Pb+Q at any point represents the total nominal stress at that
point and the  (Pm + Pb + Q) represents the range of total nominal stress from one
operating state to other operating state. The limit 3 S m ( 2Sy) ensures "Shake Down" to
elastic action. A simple way to view P + Q is the membrane-plus-bending stress range
(through the thickness at any location within the component) for all applied loads. Thus,
P + Q can be calculated without separating the types of stresses, that is, Pm, PL, Pb, and
Q. The P + Q includes all applied operating loads—mechanical, thermal, and
expansion—applied in normal operation (i.e., Levels A and B). The P + Q is a range of
stress that occurs from one loading condition to a second loading condition.
‘The primary-plus-secondary stress limits are intended to prevent excessive plastic
deformation leading to incremental collapse, and to validate the application of elastic
analysis when performing the fatigue evaluation’. If this limit exceeds then each load
cycle will lead to plastic cycling and hence fatigue damage of the gross section and in
addition it may also lead to accumulation of plastic strain due to ratcheting.
________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 7: Typical Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel
The following conditions shall be satisfied before check is made for above stated
criterion, i.e., stated, primary plus secondary stress limit (Pm+Pb+Q). These conditions are
basically related to prevention of plastic collapse, plastic instability and non ductile
fracture (which in turn related to the selection of thickness of the component):
a) The nominal stresses (Pm and Pb) shall be limited to prevent gross plastic
deformation. The limits on the primary stresses (i.e. limit on P m , and limit on Pm +
Pb ) prevents the gross plastic deformation by plastic collapse due to the primary
stress alone. The primary stresses (mechanical stresses) shall be limited to prevent
failure by plastic collapse / plastic instability). The stress limits are :
Pm  1.0 Sm
Pm + Pb  1.5 Sm
b) The thickness of component shall be such that possibility of non-ductile fracture,

in presence of postulated crack, shall be ruled out. This is assured by postulating the
part-through-thickness crack in the direction perpendicular to the direction of
maximum stress.
________________________________________________________________________
The crack depth is at least equal to one-

fourth of component thickness and its
length is six times the crack depth, see
Fig. 4. It shall be shown that:
2 KIM + KIT  KIC

a=t/4&
In the above equation, KIC is material t
2c = 6a
fracture toughness, KIM & KIT are stress
intensity factors corresponding to a
mechanical and thermal loads. KIC is
2c
fracture toughness and should take into
the account the degradation due to C L
neutron embrittlement and other ageing
effects during the life time of
component.
Fig. 8: Schematic of Pressure

Vessel Depicting Postulated
Cracks
Limits to preclude thermal ratcheting (Plastic Shake Down)

Ratcheting, i.e., progressive incremental inelastic deformation or incremental plastic
collapse, has been explained detail in section 0.
The ASME Sec.III has provide the limits based on above diagram for preclusion of
thermal ratcheting. Limits on cyclic thermal stress permitted in the axisymmetric shells
loaded by steady state pressure, for pressure vessels, has been given in (ref. ASME
Sec.III NB-3222.5)
Let us define
x = Ratio of general membrane stress due to pressure to yield stress = p/y
and y = Ratio of maxi. thermal stress (linear elastic analysis) to yield stress = t/y
For Linear Temperature Variation the limits are given as:

y = 1/x for 0 < x < 0.5
y = 4(1-x) for 0.5 < x < 1
The above equations are derived from equations given in section 0.
________________________________________________________________________
ASME also gives these limits for parabolic temperature distribution as given below
for 0 < x < 0.615
y = 4.65, 3.55 and 2.7 corresponding to x = 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5)
for 0.615 < x < 1
y = 5.2(1-x)
For any other temperature distribution one can develop thermal ratcheting
interaction diagram and frame rule to preclude thermal ratcheting.
ASME has also given thermal stress ratchet limit for piping components etc. Here
the limit has been given in term of temperature gradient rather than thermal stress,
however their basis is similar to above discussed. For all the load ranges the value of
equivalent linear radial thermal gradient (T1) should be limited as follows:
y'σ y
ΔT1  C4
0.7Eα
Where,
C4 = 1.1 (for ferritic) and 1.3 (for austenitic materials)
E = Elastic Modulus &  = thermal expansion coefficient
y = 3.33, 2, 1.2 & 0.8 for x = 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 & 0.8 respectively
x = P Do / 2ty & P = maximum service pressure for the given event
Fatigue damage in Local Regions under cyclic loading

The satisfaction of the design rules of mentioned in previous section (section 0) prevents
any gross plastic deformation owing to cyclic loading. Hence the components are seldom
subjected to plastic strains over their entire cross-sections. However, plastic strains do
commonly occur locally at stress raisers, such as holes, fillets, grooves, and keyways,
here collectively termed notches or local regions, and sometimes at other regions of
relatively high stress, such as the outer surfaces of bending or torsion members. The
stress at notches is termed as peak stresses and is responsible for fatigue damage. The
Cyclic Loading across the gross section causes Strain Cycling in the local regions /
notches. The local stresses-strain, generally obtained using elastic analysis are pseudo-
elastic stresses-strain. In reality there may be high strain concentration in relation to the
elastically evaluated strains. In such regions the main cause of concern is plastic strain
cycling leading to Fatigue Damage. The evaluation of local strain concentrations and
fatigue damage evaluations rules would be discussed in details in next sections. However
they will not cover areas like fundamental causes of fatigue, micro/macro level fatigue
________________________________________________________________________
mechanisms, etc. Standard books and papers can be referred for understanding these
fundamentals. Designer should be well aware of those fundamentals. However, in order
to maintain smooth relation some of the most essential facts, directly related to design,
would be briefly discussed. These fundamental facts will help in arriving at rational
approach to fatigue resistant design.
Introduction to Fatigue Damage

After considerable research towards understanding of the fatigue process on a sub-
microscopic level and application of rigorous mechanics the empirical ideas have given
rise to generalizations. It is now clear that the fatigue process is conditioned by cyclic
plastic deformation. Without repeated plastic deformation there would be no fatigue. For
example, the plastic strain amplitude at the fatigue limit is of the order of 1.0E-5 for
many metallic materials. This plastic strain, applied only once, does not cause any
substantial changes in the substructure of materials but the multiple repetition of this very
small plastic deformation leads to cumulative damage ending in fracture. The elastic
deformation is fully reversible and cannot thus cause any damage. It is the plastic
deformation which causes irreversible changes in the material substructure, mainly in the
dislocation substructure and therefore only the cyclic plastic deformation is considered as
the most decisive phenomena in the fatigue process. It is now well established and
recognized that fatigue is basically a strain controlled phenomena as compared to earlier
understanding of it as stress controlled phenomena. The number of cycles to failure
increase as variable strain amplitude is reduced. In addition to load or strain amplitude,
the fatigue life of a component depends on many factors like, mean stress, surface finish,
component size, environment, multiaxiality / non-proportionality of stresses, mean stress
etc.
The material resistance to fatigue damage is generally given in the form of the S-N
diagram which is the plot of the alternating stress amplitude (pseudo elastic) and the
number of cycles to fail or fatigue life. The S-N curve for a material is generated by
conducting fatigue testing on material. A typical S-N curve for metallic materials is
shown in figure given below. The S-N curve can be divided into three main regions:
Fig. 9: Typical S-N curve plot
________________________________________________________________________
 Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF) Region: The LCF region is defined where stress
amplitude could be of the order of yield stress or higher. The maximum number of
cycles could be of the order of 1E04. In low cycle fatigue the plastic strains are
significant and is the governing parameter in fatigue life evaluations. The Material‘s
ductility is an important property.
 High Cycle Fatigue (HCF) Region: The HCF region is defined where stress
amplitude is generally less than yield stress. The number of cycles are greater than
1E04 (approx.) but less than a value in between 1E06 and 1E10. The upper bound
depends on the type of material. The plastic strain is very small and the deformations
are mainly elastic and stress controlled. The Material‘s strength is an important
property
 Endurance Region (Se): where stress amplitude are so less that any number of
cycling will not lead to failure. The number of cycles are greater than the value lying
in between 1E06 to 1E10. The stress amplitude at which it occurs is one half of
"Endurance Strength" (S e). There are many materials, such as Austenitic Stainless
Steels, for which endurance strength point is not well defined.
Fatigue Tests:
Following tests are carried out to generate the S-N curve data for a material.
Rotating-beam Tests:
Such tests are the earliest systematic testing of materials for fatigue resistance
dates back to the early 1900s. Here, the test is conducted under the constant cyclic stress
conditions with the rotating-beam test set up (R. R. Moore). Following figures shows the
tests setup, stress distribution in test specimen, and stress versus loading cycles history.
Rotating Beam test for High Cycle fatigue
________________________________________________________________________
Stress Distribution in Rotating Beam Stress Vs. Cycles History for High Cycle
test Fatigue Test
Fig. 10: Rotating beam test to generate HCF data

Typical S-N curve obtained from these test has been given below. Note that the stress
levels are kept below the yield stress of material. Above the yield stress the rotating beam
tests are not preferred.
Fig. 11: S-N Curve generated from the Rotating Beam test
Axial push-pull tests:
When the maximum stress in the specimen approaches or exceeds the yield strength of
the material, the stress distribution is no longer given by the elastic formulas for stress,
and therefore the rotating-beam test in which S is calculated purely on the basis of
applied bending moment and section modulus of the specimen loses its relevance.
Instead, more sophisticated testing procedures are needed, based on measured strain.
These procedures became available in the 1950s with the advent of servo hydraulic
testing machines that could apply tensile and compressive axial cyclic loading. Small
Smooth Specimen representing the material in critical (local) zone as shown in following
figue, is tested under cyclic loading under constant strain conditions and its stress-strain
and fatigue behavior is characterized. It is generally conducted by subjecting the
cylindrical specimen to totally reversible (i.e., mean stress is zero) axial loads. The strain
amplitude v/s number of cycles behaviour of a material can be obtained by specimen
level fatigue testing. In each fatigue test the level of strain amplitude is fixed and number
________________________________________________________________________
of cycles to failure is determined. The tests are repeated for different strain amplitudes to
obtain full fatigue data.
Test Specimen and setup Strain Vs. Cycles history

Fig. 12: Axial push-pull tests on round solid specimen to generate fatigue S-N curve
The strain amplitude versus number of cycles obtained from these tests plotted in
following figure
Fig. 13: Total Strain Fatigue Life Curve Generated from LCF Tests.
The strain amplitude in the strain fatigue life (a-2N ) is converted to equivalent stress
amplitude by multiplying E to strains so that data can be directly compared with known
stress values of a component and the converted curve is called Stress Amplitude v/s
Number of Cycles (S-N) curve. This helps in evaluating the fatigue life using pseudo-
elastic stresses. Since E is dependent on temperature hence S-N curve also depends on
temperature. Since E is dependent on temperature hence S-N curve also depends on
temperature. Salt must be corrected for the temperature at which the component undergo
fatigue loading
E
Salt ,corrected  Salt  Salt 
'
'
E
(0.88)
E‘= Young‘s modulus at operating temperature
E = Young‘s modulus used in conversion of strain fatigue life (a-Nf ) curve into S-N
curve.
________________________________________________________________________
Stages of Fatigue Damage

On the basis of the types of irreversible changes in the material caused by cyclic plastic
deformation, it is possible to divide the whole fatigue process, at any point on S-N curve,
into 4 consecutive and partly overlapping stages as demonstrated in figure given below.
a) Initial Damage: The initial damage basically comprises the changes in the
material‘s response to the cyclic loading which often differs from monotonic
behavior. Fatigue or cyclic hardening and or softening, depending mainly on the
original state of the material and the stress or strain amplitude takes place in this
stage. This stage is characterised by the changes of substructure within the whole
volume of the loaded metal. The damage can be recovered by thermal annealing.
b) Crack Initiation: Micro crack nucleation due to slip band extrusions and
intrusions. After nucleation the crack deepens to an easily observable size. It is
known as Stage I fatigue crack growth (FCG).
c) Crack Growth: It involves growth of well-defined crack in direction normal to
maximum tensile stress. The controlling factor of crack propagation in highly
concentrated cyclic plastic deformation within the plastic zone at the crack tip.
The crack growth is of sub-critical nature. It is known as Stage II fatigue crack
growth.
d) Cyclic Tearing Leading to Ultimate Fracture: Crack size increases to a stage
that effect of cyclic load becomes so predominant that sizeable crack growth
occurs even after application of one load cycle. The crack growth under cyclic
load is analogous to stable crack extension under monotonic ductile tearing hence
the term "Cyclic Tearing" is used. The stable cyclic tearing extension ends up in
unstable crack extension within very few cycles leading to ultimate fracture. It is
known as Stage III fatigue crack growth
________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 14: Mechanism of fatigue crack initiation: Slip band formation and intrusion /
extrusion process
Stage - I Stage - II
Fatigue Crack
Initial damage
Growth Region
and
Crack Growth
(FCGR) :
Crack Initiation
Paris Law
Rate
Stage - III
Cyclic Tearing :
FCGR + Tearing
Stress Intensity Range Log (K)
Fig. 15: Different stages of fatigue damage

Various Stageuntil complete
of Fatigue failure of the component
Failure
The basic principle of fatigue resistance is very simple - "provide sufficient margin
against crack initiation or if it initiates then provide sufficient margin against critical
crack size and critical load. However, applying this principle is not that simple unless
systematic and detailed fatigue evaluation of components is done. In ASME section III
NB fatigue analysis ensures sufficient margin against fatigue crack initiation.
Cyclic stress strain curve

As discussed in previous section, the material undergoes initial damage or exhibits
transient behavior when subjected to cyclic loading. Depending on the initial condition of
the metal and test conditions, a metal may undergo following:
 Cyclic Hardening: material‘s stress strain response hardens under cyclic
loading
 Cyclic Softening: material‘s stress strain response softens under cyclic
loading
 Have mixed behavior (soften or hardens depending on the strain range)
________________________________________________________________________
 Remains stable: material‘s stress strain response does not changes
  
Fig. 16: Stress, strain time history showing a) cyclic hardening and b) cyclic
softening of material under cyclic loading
Stainless
Carbon Steel
Steel
Hysteresis Response: Cyclic Hardening Hysteresis Response: Cyclic Hardening
Fig. 17: Hysteresis stress –strain loop showing cyclic softening / hardening of
material under cyclic loading
________________________________________________________________________
The above figures demonstrate that the material response to cyclic loading after initial
transit behavior, generally get stabilize. The stable cyclic stress strain response / curve is
often differ significantly from the monotonic and is in the form of hysteresis. The cyclic
- curve is obtained from joining max stress-strain points on the stable hysteresis
obtained for different strain rages. This is demonstrated in following figure
Fig. 18: Cyclic Stress Strain Curve
In case of detailed elastic plastic finite element analyses based assessment of elastic
plastic strain in local regions (identified for fatigue evaluation), the cyclic stress-strain
curve along with suitable kinematic hardening model shall be used in FE analysis.
Fatigue strain life equation

The fatigue life can be represented in term of the strains and stress at the notch location.
Let us consider stable strain stress hysteresis (material response to cyclic load) as given in
following figure. Various parameter of the hysteresis is also defied.
________________________________________________________________________
 : Range of Stress
 : Range of total strain
p : Range of plastic strain that is
width of hysteresis loop at zero
stress
e : /E, Range of elastic strain
Nf : Number of Cycles to Fail
Amplitudes :
a=/2 ; a=/2 ; pa=p/2
Δσ
Strain Range Δε = Δεp +Δεe = Δεp +
E
σa
Strain Amplitude εa = εap +
E
Coffin-Manson Equation: Relation between Fatigue Life and Plastic Strain range.
Coffin and Manson in their independent and simultaneous work have shown that when
the number of stress reversals and the plastic strain amplitude is plotted on a log-log
graph, it can fitted in a straight line equation. The coffin has found the slope of this line
equal to 0.5 while Manson in his work proposed it as 0.6. The general form of this
equation can be given as
' b
εap = εf (2Nf )
Where
2Nf = Number of stress reversals
f = Fatigue Ductility Coefficient
Log (pa)
b = Fatigue Ductility Exponent Plastic Strain

Coffin : b=-0.5
Manson : b=-0.6
For most of the metals the fatigue ductility
exponent ‗b‘ varies from -0.5 to -0.7
b
Log (2Nf)
Baquin Equation : Relation between Fatigue Life and applied Stress range. Baquin has
shown that when the number of stress reversals and the stress amplitude is plotted on a
log-log graph, it can fitted in a straight line equation. This equation provides good
representation for stress levels below yield.
________________________________________________________________________

=  f (2Nf )
' a
Log (/2E)
2 Elastic Strain
2Nf = Number of stress reversals

f = Fatigue Strength Coefficient
a = Fatigue Strength Exponent
a
For most of the metals the fatigue strength
exponent ‗a‘ ranges from -0.05 to -0.12
Log (2Nf)
Basquin & Coffin-Manson Equation: Relationship between fatigue life and strain
amplitude. Here the Basquin and Coffin-Manson equation are combined to get a fatigue
life equation in term of total strain amplitude.
Total Strain Amplitude (εa )

Δσ
Log (a)
εa = +ε
2E ap Total Strain
'
σ a ' b
εa = f (2Nf ) + εf (2Nf )
E
Elastic Strain
a
Elastic Strain Plastic Strain

Plastic Strain
Term (HCF) Term (LCF) b
2Nt
Log (2Nf)
The above equation needs the following material parameters

 Fatigue strength coefficient
 Fatigue strength exponent
 Fatigue ductility coefficient
 Fatigue ductility exponent
Fatigue life equation in term of pseudo stress and standard mechanical properties
Many times the above mentioned fatigue properties are not readily available with
designer. In conditions of unavailability of S-N curve and fatigue properties such as
Fatigue strength coefficient, Fatigue strength exponent, Fatigue ductility coefficient,
Fatigue ductility exponent etc. following derived equation which is based on standard
mechanical properties can be used.
________________________________________________________________________
The Coffin equation as discussed earlier can be rewritten in term of fatigue Life (N f) and
plastic strain range (p) and as given below.
p Nf = C
In above equation, the constant C is taken as one half of the fracture ductility that is true
strain at fracture. The ductility is given in term of % elongation or %reduction in area.
(L-Lo )*100
% elongation, dl =
Lo
or
(Ao -A)*100
% Reduction in area, da =
Ao
The true strain at fracture can be given as below

dL A dA A   100 
True Strain , e =   
L
 Loge  o   Loge  
Lo L A o A  A  100  da 
Then the Coffin equation becomes
1 1  100 
p Nf = C = e  Loge  
2 2  100  da 
Let us assume that material behavior is

elastic perfectly plastic and its response
to the cyclic load is given as below.
Fig. 19: Strain-Strain Hysteresis under Cycle Loading
The pseudo elastic stress amplitude can be given as
Eεt
σ=
2
The total strain range is decomposed into the elastic and plastic parts
 t  e  p
The elastic strain can be given as

a
e  2
E
________________________________________________________________________
Then the pseudo elastic stress amplitude becomes

E
  a  
2 p
Then with use of Coffin equation and total strain range equation, above can be written as
E  100 
σ = σa + Loge  
4 Nf  100-da 
Consider as condition when N f approaches to infinity then the stress  must approach to
the endurance limit, e
σa = σE
The Endurance strength generally expressed in term of material standard mechanical
properties
E  0.01ultda
Then the pseudo elastic stress amplitude becomes
E  100 
σ = 0.01ultda + Loge  
4 Nf  100-da 
Strength Governed Term Ductility Governed Term
Dominates when Nf is large Dominates when Nf is small
with the help of above equation, it is possible to calculated N f for given pseudo elastic
stress  and material's standard mechanical properties (da, ult, E etc.).
Fatigue life evaluation methods

Following two approaches are available for fatigue life evaluations
Stress life approach:
The oldest and most widely employed approach to dealing with problems of fatigue of
materials is to select stress as the key variable that determines life, as in the work of
Wohler, starting in the late 1850s. Salient points of this approach are listed below.
 Fatigue life depend on stress amplitude
 Deformations assumed to be elastic and stress controlled. Valid only where plastic
strains are small and insignificant
 S-N curve is generally generated from Rotating Beam (Moore) Stress Controlled
Test
 Good for HCF
________________________________________________________________________
Strain life approach:
A century later in 1950s, in separate and essentially simultaneous work, Coffin and
Manson began to emphasize strain as a governing parameter. This was needed for low-
cycle fatigue situations where there is cyclic plastic strain, causing relatively small
numbers of cycles to failure. In this approach, the traditional stress–life curves are
replaced or supplemented by strain–life curves. Also, cyclic stress–strain curves are
employed, as these may differ significantly from the stress–strain curve from a tension
test. Salient points of this approach are listed below.
 Fatigue Life depend on strains amplitude
 Material elastic plastic stress-strain behavior considered. Significant plastic
deformations at notches, local regions get accounted in this approach.
 In nonlinear region strain amplification are higher then stress amplification.
Higher strain amplification shortens fatigue life.
 Cyclic stress-strain curve is employed which may defer significantly from the
stress-strain curve from tension test.
 This approach can be used for both HCF and LCF.
 Fatigue life curve (S-N curve) generated from strain controlled tests (LCF tests)
 ASME Sec-III uses this approach in fatigue evaluations.
The power plant components are made up of ductile materials with medium to low yield
strength and low cycle fatigue governs. Hence Strain life approach is used in fatigue life
evaluation.
Fatigue under variable amplitude loading
The laboratory testing and fatigue design curve are based on simple axial and constant
amplitude loadings. In contrast, most service loading histories have a variable amplitude
and can be quite complex as shown in following figure. In power plants often
components are subjected to multiple load cycles acting simultaneously, for example,
pressure fluctuation accompanied by temperature changes.
________________________________________________________________________
Several method have been developed to deal with variable amplitude loading using the
base line data generated from constant amplitude tests. These methods provide
procedures for cumulative damage evaluation and cycle counting which is used to
recognize damaging events in a complex loading history.
Cycle counting method
To predict the life of a component subjected to variable a load history, it is necessary to

reduce the complex history into a number of events which can be compared to the
available constant amplitude test data. This process of reducing a complex load history
into a number of constant amplitude events involves what is called cycle counting. The
commonly used cycling counting method is Rainflow counting or falling rain approach.
This approaches counts the closed hysteresis loops in the complex stress strain response
of a material subjected to cyclic loading. In this procedure, the strain time history is
plotted with time axis oriented vertically, with increasing time downward. One could now
imagine that the strain history forms a number of ―pagoda roofs‖. Then as its name
suggests, cycles are defined by the manner in which rain is allowed to fall or drip down
the roof. A number of rules are imposed on the falling rain so as to identify the closed
hysteresis loops. This procedure gives the cycle counting as well as corresponding load
amplitude.
________________________________________________________________________
Strain
A
B-C-B
B
C
D
E
F E-F-E
Cycles
G G-H-G
H
A'=A
Time A-D-A
Stress B D
Strain
H
C
E
A G
=A'
Cycle Counting Using Rainflow Diagram

Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF)
The most commonly used method for cumulative damage evaluation (damage
which is summation for initiation of crack) is Linear Damage Rule and also known as
Miner‘s Rules. Here the damage fraction, D, is defined as fraction of the life used up by
an event or a series of similar events. Then the failure that is crack initiation, is assumed
to occur when the summation of damage fraction equals to 1.
D i 1
The linear damage rule states that the damage fraction, D i , at stress level Si , is
equal to the cycle ratio ni/Ni
n
Di  i
Ni
________________________________________________________________________
Where, ni is the number of load cycles at stress level S i , and Ni is the fatigue life
in cycles for alternating stress equal to S i. Hence the failure criterion for variable
amplitude loading can be given as
ni
N 1
i
Following is general procedure for fatigue evaluation using minor‘s rule for damage
accumulation.
• The complex loading histories contains variable amplitude loads and is
decomposed into several simple constant amplitude loadings. Let us assume that
the loading history is composed of load cycles of different constant stress
amplitudes a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 …… n
• The stress amplitude a1 , a2 , a3 , …… an is loaded for n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 ,

n5 …… nn cycles, respectively
• Minor‘s rule is employed for damage evaluation under such variable amplitude
• The fatigue life (cycle to failure) is defined for each amplitude of stress a1 , a2
, a3 , a4 …… an as N1 , N2 , N3 , N4 , N5 …… Nn cycles, respectively,
using the constant amplitude fatigue life curve.
• The damaging effect / damage contribution of each stress amplitude cycling is

assumed to be n1 /N1 , n2 /N2 , n3 /N3 , n4 /N4 , n5 /N5 …… nn /Nn
• Failure is assumed to occur when the sum of these ratios (n1 /N1 + n2 /N2
………) reaches 1.
 nn /Nn = 1
• It is assumed that the sequence in which the loads are applied has no influence on
the lifetime of the component.
Mean stress Effect and their Considerations in design

If mean stress is not equal to zero (as shown in figure given below) then its effect has to
be considered for arriving at equivalent allowable stress or for given stress allowable
number of cycles.
________________________________________________________________________
max
a
m
min
The Tensile (positive) mean stress shortens fatigue life however, the compressive mean
stress increases or has little effect on fatigue life. Fatigue life decreases with the increase
of mean stress. When the stress amplitude are more then the yield stress, mean stress does
not effects the fatigue life. Following figure demonstrates the mean stress effects on
fatigue life of components.
m4> m3> m2> m1

Stress Amplitude
y
m1
m2
m3
m4
Fatigue Life N
Various parameters which are generally used for characterizing the cyclic loading are
given below.
Stress Range :  = max - min
Alternating Stress : : Salt = 0.5(max - min)
Mean Stress : mean = 0.5(max + min)
Stress Ratio : R = min / max
Amplitude Ratio : A = Salt / mean
Following interaction equations are commonly used for mean stress correction in the
fatigue life evaluations.
a. Soderberg (USA 1930)
________________________________________________________________________
Salt σmean
 1
Se Sy
b. Goodman (England, 1899)
Salt σmean
 1
Se Su
c. Gerber (Germany, 1874)
2
Salt  σmean 
  1
Se  Su 
Following figure presents the graphical picture of above mentioned interaction equation
between the fatigue and tensile failures.
Goodma
SE
n
c Gerber
amp
Soderber a
g
SY SU
mean Mean Stress
The above figure shows the plot of fatigue strength of several steels as a function of mean
stress for a constant number of cycles to failure. It may noted here that the actual test data
tend to fall between Goodman and Gerber Curve as shown in above figure. Soderberg
method is very conservative and seldom used. Hence Goodman interaction equation
which is reasonably conservative is generally used by the designer for mean stress
consideration in fatigue design. Goodman has been adopted in ASME Sec III Fatigue
Design.
S
E
Finite
amp
Life
Infinite
Life
Mean Stress S
U
Goodman Interaction Diagram
For finite life the Goodman equation becomes
________________________________________________________________________
1
Salt σmean  σ 
  1 or Salt0  Salt  1- mean 
Salt0 Su  Su 
Following figure demonstrates the procedure for evaluation of mean stress corrected
fatigue life. Consider a point with amplitude and mean stress as (Salt, M). Nm is the
fatigue life with mean stress correction and N is corresponding fatigue life without mean
stress consideration. The Salt0 is the modified alternating stress intensity which is
corrected for mean stress effect.
SA
Salt0
Nm N Cycles
Alternating Stress
(Salt, mean)
SU
Mean Stress
There can be many combinations of (Salt, mean) which will give same fatigue life. In
cases where the Salt + mean (pseudo elastic stress) exceeds the yield stress (S y), the
material undergoes yielding and as a results the mean stress mean relaxes to a value  mean
which satisfies the relation, Salt + mean = Sy. The Goodman diagram is further modified
so that the Modified-Goodman Interaction Line never exceeds the yield line because of
relaxation of mean stress by way of yielding in few initial loading cycles.
The modified Goodman diagram equation is obtained from following two equations
Salt  mean  Sy
Salt σmean
 1
Salt0 Su
The above two equation can be solved, for below equation
 S -S 
Salt  Salt0  U y  for Salt < Sy
 Su  Salt0 
________________________________________________________________________
and
Salt  Salt0 for Salt  Sy
The following figure demonstrates this concept.
The ASME Design Fatigue Curve accounts for maximum possible mean stress and by
using the Modified Goodman diagram. It can be used for cases where the actual mean
stress cannot be reliably quantified, for example residual stresses near welds etc.
However, if mean stress can be accurately determined then actual correction should be
incorporated. Following figures demonstrates the steps used in obtaining the modified
design curve in ASME Sec. III which incorporates maximum mean stress correction.
Salt0 +σmean = SY
Alternating
Alternating
Design Curve
Stress
Stress
SY Modified
Salt Design Curve
Salt0
Mean
mean SY SU Stress Nm N Cycles
Fig. 20: method of obtaining modified design fatigue design curve as per modified
Goodman correction incorporating maximum mean stress correction.
________________________________________________________________________
ASME Fatigue design curve

The fatigue (S-N) curve obtained semi-empirically is the raw curve and cannot be
used without appropriate modifications. Once these modifications are incorporated then it
is called "Design Fatigue (S-N) Curve". ASME B&PV Sec-III Code in its Mandatory
Appendix-I, has provided Design Fatigue Curves for some of the materials commonly
used in pressure vessels and piping.
These curves have been obtained from strain-cycling tests with zero mean strain.
The Design Fatigue Curve is plotted in terms of E /2 (=Salt) v/s N. This helps in
evaluating the fatigue life using pseudo-elastic stresses. The Design Fatigue Curve
incorporates the factor of safety of 20 on number of cycles or 2 on stress. The factor of
safety considered for the scatter in fatigue tests data, uncertainties in cumulative damage
during multiple cycles, accuracy in prediction of local strains, surface finish, size effects,
environmental effects, effect of triaxiality on fatigue ductility etc.
The basic principles of obtaining Design Fatigue Curve are as follows:
(a) The Design Fatigue Curve, chiefly, gives measure of number of cycles to initiation.
(b) The designer should be able to use it directly. The fatigue testing is done under strain
controlled conditions. However, the stresses are usually based on elastic stress analysis
hence in order to maintain one-is-to-one correspondence the ordinate of S-N curve is
expressed in terms of "fictitious stress" (pseudo stress) which is obtained by multiplying
total strain by half of Young's Modulus of Elasticity (E /2 =Salt) to get Stress
Amplitude (half of stress range).
(c) Designer should have adequate margin to take care of various uncertainties. The
ASME Code has recommended that margin of 2 on stress or 20 on number of cycles,
which ever is conservative, shall be used to arrive at Design Fatigue Curve. The margin
of 20 comprises of :
- Uncertainties due to data scatter = 2.0
- Size effects = 2.5
- Surface Finish, Cumulative Damage uncertainties,
Inaccuracies in Stresses etc. = 4.0
Once these margins are incorporated than S-N curve, instead of "Salt v/s N" becomes "Sa
v/s N", where Sa is Allowable Stress Amplitude for any given number of cycles, N.
(d) The Design Fatigue Curves are based on S-N curves obtained by testing of smooth
specimens and not notched specimens. The "notch sensitivity" or fatigue strength
reduction factor is considered in the component stresses rather than in fatigue curve. It is
now a well recognised fact that S-N curves (based on strain controlled conditions) of
notched and smooth specimens are almost parallel to each other which implies that just
________________________________________________________________________
by multiplication of one constant factor the S-N curve for notched specimen can be
determine from S-N curve of smooth specimen.
(e) The Design Fatigue Curves are available for two conditions. One in which mean
stress is assumed to be zero and the other in which mean stress value is equal to its
maximum possible value. The maximum possible mean stress and its effect can be easily
determined form Modified Goodman Diagram. The effect of maximum possible mean
stress on can be accounted as follows :
Salt = Salt0 [(u - y )/(u – Salt0)] ; If Salt < y
Salt = Salt0 ; If Salt  y
Salt0 = Allowable Alternating Stress if Mean Stress = 0.0
Salt = Allowable Alternating Stress in presence of maximum possible Mean Stress
u & y = Ultimate & yield strength of material
Above equations shows that if Sa > Sy then there is no effect of mean stress. The
corrected design fatigue curve is some times referred as modified design fatigue curve.
(f) The Design Fatigue Curve is based on tests in air. The designer is responsible for
accounting suitable effects of other environments such as hot/boiling water, radiation,
corrosion effects etc. Some times it involves complete testing in simulated environment.
(g) Temperature effects are accounted by using appropriate value of Young's Modulus
‗E‘ at a given temperature. The 'E' value used to construct Design Fatigue Curve is
known. If , at a given temperature, actual value of 'E' ('Eact') is different then 'Sa' value is
corrected to 'Sact'. Where Sact = Sa (Eact/E).
(h) The temperature is less than creep temperature.
Following figure shows the Raw and Design Fatigue Curve for zero and maximum
possible mean stress.
________________________________________________________________________
Alternating Stress Intensity, Salt 

Raw Fatigue Curve
Design Fatigue Curve (DFC)

(with fatctor of safety)
Sy
Modified DFC : with maximum mean stress correction
Fatigue Life N
ASME Fatigue Life Evaluation Curve
ASME Sec. III-NB Fatigue analysis procedure

Satisfying the limits stipulated in section 0, prevents any gross cyclic plastic deformation
and hence fatigue damage owing to cyclic loading. However, in local regions such as
nozzle openings, holes, fillets, grooves, and keyways etc elastic plastic cyclic excursion
take place and hence fatigue damage accumulated in these local regions. The suitability
of such components (with local regions) for specified service loadings involving cyclic
application of loads and thermal conditions is be determined by satisfying either of
following:
Simple formulae based exemption from fatigue analysis
Detailed Fatigue Analyses is exempted under following conditions:
• The component shall have compliance with the applicable requirements for
material, design limits, fabrication, examination, and testing of the code
• The specified service loadings (pressure, temperature and mechanical loads of
service level-A and service level-B) and the specified number of cycles of the
fluctuations of pressure, temperature & mechanical load during normal service
during the design life of a component is considered.
• If the specified Service Loadings and number of cycles satisfies the simplified
formulae based limits, detailed Fatigue Analysis is exempted. It assures
insignificant fatigue damage. It may be assumed that the limits on peak stress
intensities as governed by fatigue have been satisfied.
________________________________________________________________________
Detailed Fatigue Analyses:

Here detailed analyses is carried out and the fatigue life in terms of crack initiation is kept
sufficiently larger to preclude any chances of formation and propagation of cracks. The
ASME design fatigue curve (S-N), which is used for predicting crack initiation,
incorporate a factor of 2 on stress amplitude and 20 on number of cycles, whichever is
conservative. The fatigue damage will start at stress concentration sites (see Fig. 21).
Fig. 21: Schematic Depicting Typical Stress Concentration Sites
The ability of the component to withstand the specified cyclic service without fatigue
failure shall be determined as per procedure given here. The determination shall be made
on the basis of the stresses at a point and not in gross section. The procedure and steps for
fatigue evaluation adopted in ASME Sec. III, is summarized below:
Derivation of Alternating Stress Intensity:
There are different types of load cycles, anticipated during the design life of components.
Table 1 shows partial list of types and number of load cycles anticipated in design life of
a typical Indian PHWRs. For each of service level / service condition, the six stress
components (x, y, z, xy, yz & zx) at a highly stressed point taking into account both
the actual geometry ( both gross and local structural discontinuities) and loadings shall be
evaluated based on linear elastic material behavior.
Table 1: Types of Load Cycles in Typical Indian PHWR Plants
(this is a partial list given to illustrate the type cyclic loads)
Sr. Type of Cycles No. of
No. Cycles
1 Operation at 100% power Zero
2 Heatup from Cold Shut Down (CSD) 1000
to Hot Stand By (HSB)
3 Startup from HSB to 100% Power 4000
4 Shut Down from 100% Power to HSB 750
________________________________________________________________________
5 Cool Down from HSB to CSD 750

6 Power Manoeuvring at 100 % Power 15000
7 Reactor Trip from 100 % Power 1000
8 Pump Trips at 100 % Power 250
------- and so on
The ASME Sec III has defined the procedure for evaluation the alternating stress
intensity. There could be two different situations; one when the Principal Stress Direction
does not changes with time or cycles. In other case where the directions of the principal
stresses at the point being considered change during the cycle
Constant Principle Stress directions (NB-3216.1):

For the proportional loading case where the directions of the principal stresses at the
point being considered do not change during the stress cycle, the following steps shall be
used to determine the alternating stress intensity:
a) Principal Stresses: Consider the values of the three principal stresses at the point
versus time for the complete stress cycle taking into account both the gross and
local structural discontinuities and the thermal effects which vary during the
cycle. These are designated as 1, 2, and 3 for later identification.
b) Principal Stress Differences: Determine the stress differences S 12=1-2, S23=2-
3, and S31=3-1 versus time for the complete cycle. In what follows, the symbol
Sij is used to represent any one of these three stress differences.
c) Alternating Stress Intensity: Determine the extremes of the range through which
each stress difference Sij fluctuates and find the absolute magnitude of this range
for each Sij. Call this magnitude Srij and let Salt ij=0.5*Srij. The alternating stress
intensity Salt is the largest Salt ij value.
Varying Principle Stress directions (NB-3216.2):

For the loading case where the directions of the principal stresses at the point being
considered vary/rotates during the stress cycle, the steps given below shall be used to
determine the alternating stress intensity. Such loading is termed as non-proportional
loading. The generally occurs when stresses are caused in the material due to multiple
loading source which are varying non-proportionally.
a) Determine the six stress components at a highly stressed point versus time for
entire cycle (x, y, z, xy, yz & zx) taking into account both the gross and local
structural discontinuities and the thermal effects which vary during the cycle.
________________________________________________________________________
b) Choose Reference Point: Choose a point in time corresponding to extreme of the

cycle, either maximum or minimum. The stress components at this time are
termed (xi, yi, zi, xyi, yzi & zxi)
c) Find Stress Differences: x = xi- x, y= yi- y etc. v/s time
d) Find principal stresses (1, 2, 3 ) v/s time from x, y, z, xy, yz & zx.
Here the identity of principal stress is retained as it rotates or changes directions.
e) Principal Stress Differences: Determine principal stress differences v/s time: S12
= 1 - 2 ; S23 = 2 - 3 ; S31 = 3 - 1 , for complete cycle
f) Alternating Stress Intensity (Salt) is half of the largest absolute value of any stress
difference (S12, S23 or S31 ) at any time.
Analysis procedure to evaluate cumulative damage fraction (CDF)
Let there be "m" type of cycles. Each type of load cycle is analyzed in order to evaluate
the range of stress (), Salt (=1/2 ), mean etc. Let n1 be number of 1st type of cycles,
Salt1 be stress amplitude for 1st type of cycles and so on . . . . to "n" number of cycles.
a) Consider all the service level load cycles under Level A, Level B and Test
conditions. Let us designate them as 1, 2, 3, 4, …, i, …..n type of cyclic service
load.
b) Let n1, n2, n3, n4, …., ni,……nn be the anticipated number of cycles for each type
of service load or their combination.
c) Service loads at a point are combined to maximize the range or Salt and here the
order in which they occurs are not considered. However the loads in same
direction are superimposed only when they occurs at same time. Worst
combinations shall be selected. As an example consider the following case:
Let there be two types of cycles, Type 1 & Type 2, such that for :
Type 1 : n1(number of cycles) = 1000, Smin=0 Ksi, Smax = 60 ksi
Type 2 : n2 = 10,000, Smin = -50 Ksi, Smax = 0 Ksi
Then combination shall be selected such that:
n1 = 1000; Smin = -50 Ksi, Smax = 60 Ksi, Salt = (60-(-50))/2 = 55 Ksi
________________________________________________________________________
n2 = 9000; Smin = -50 Ksi, Smax = 0 Ksi, Salt = (0-(-50))/2 = 25 Ksi
d) For each cycle determine Peak Alternating Stress Intensity (Salt), near the notch
or concentration site, based on linear elastic analysis. Let us designate them as
Salt1, Salt2, Salt3, Salt4, ……., Salti, ……. Saltn, corresponding to each cycle.
e) Using applicable Design Fatigue Curve, find allowable number of cycles

corresponding to Salt1, Salt2, Salt3, Salt4, ……., Salti, ……. Saltn. Let us say they are
N1, N2, N3, N4, …., Ni,……Nn. This design fatigue curve is based on factor of
safety of at least 2 on stress and 20 on number of cycles. It is corrected for
maximum possible mean stress (= yield stress).
f) Prevention against fatigue damage is assured if Cumulative Damage Fraction

(CDF) or Cumulative Usage Factor (CUF) is less than 1, that is:
n1 n2 n3 n4 n n
CUF or CDF =     ........ i  .......  n  1
N1 N2 N3 N4 Ni Nn
Fatigue Assessment of Piping Components
For piping components ASME has provided a simplified equation to evaluate
alternate stress intensity. (Ref. ASME Sec. III NB-3653.2)
Po Do MD
SP  K1C1  K 2C2 i o  K 3C3 Eab αa Ta αb Tb
2t 2I
1 1
 K 3Eα ΔT1  Eα ΔT2
2(1  ν) (1  ν)
Where Sp is the Range of peak stresses in the given occurrence and K1, K2, K3 & C1,
C2, C3 are Peak and Sec. Stress Indices Respectively.
Then the Peak Stress Range (Sp) is evaluated for all the occurrences or events and then
find Salt = Sp/2 for all the events. Each event is denoted by subscript i which varies from
1 to n. Then the cumulative Damage Fraction (CDF) as discussed earlier for the case of
vessels.
n1 n2 n3 n4 n n
    ........ i  .......  n  1
N1 N2 N3 N4 Ni Nn
The fatigue assessment procedure discussed previously assumes that at all the sections
(containing stress concentration site) the primary + secondary stress range is less than or
________________________________________________________________________
equal to 3 Sm. The adherence to 3 Sm limit ensures that gross section is in elastic
shakedown regime and peak stress ranges (and hence S alt) evaluated based on linear
elastic analysis gives reasonable approximation to actual strain concentration. The stress
concentration is approximately equal to strain concentration at the notch. However, if 3
Sm limit is violated then fatigue assessment procedure has to be modified to take into
account the actual strain amplification that takes place at notches and has been discussed
in next section. In addition possibility of thermal ratcheting (discussed earlier) shall be
precluded.
Simplified elastic-plastic analysis

If 3 Sm limit (ref. section 0) is violated then fatigue assessment procedure as explained in
section 0 becomes invalid since it would underestimate the strain amplitude in local
region. The strain amplitude evaluated based on elastic analyses has to be modified to
take into account the actual strain amplification that takes place at notches. The modified
procedure is called as simplified elastic plastic analysis and has been given below.
For pressure vessels
(a) The range of primary plus secondary membrane plus bending stress intensity,
excluding thermal bending stresses, shall be  3Sm.
(b) The value of Salt used for entering the design fatigue curve is based on elastic analysis
and multiplied by the factor Ke, where:
Ke = 1.0, for Sn  3Sm
= 1.0 + [(1 - n)/ n (m - 1)](Sn /3Sm - 1), for 3Sm < Sn < 3mSm
= 1/ n, for Sn  3mSm
where: Sn = Primary + Secondary Stress Range
The values of the material parameters m and n for the various classes of permitted
materials are given as
n = 0.2 & m = 3.0 : for Carbon Steels
n = 0.2 & m = 2.0 : for Low Alloy Steels
n = 0.3 & m = 1.7 : for Austenitic Stainless Steels
(c) Modified Peak Salt = Ke. Salt.
(d) Use modified peak Salt (that is, Ke Salt) to enter design fatigue curve and find the
damage fraction as discussed earlier in section 0
(f) The component meets the thermal ratcheting requirement as discussed in section 0.
________________________________________________________________________
Similarly for piping components also, when 3Sm limit in ASME equation 10 exceeded
then the fatigue evaluation procedure is modified for accounting the local strain
concentration. If Eq. (10) cannot be satisfied for all pairs of load sets, the Simplified
Elastic Plastic Analysis described below may still permit qualifying the component. Only
those pairs of load sets which do not satisfy Eq. (10) need be considered.
(a) The stress due to thermal expansion and thermal anchor movement shall be  3Sm.
Do *
Se  C2 M  3Sm
2I i
where M*i includes moments due to thermal expansion and thermal anchor movement
(TAM).
(b) The range of primary plus secondary membrane plus bending stress intensity,
excluding thermal bending and thermal expansion stresses, shall be  3Sm.
Po Do MD
 C2 i o  C3 Eab αa Ta αb Tb  3Sm
/
C1
2t 2I
Mi = Excluding thermal moments
(c) If above conditions are met then Salt = Ke*Sp/2

Where Sp is given in equation 3.21 and the Ke is evaluated as below
Ke = 1.0, for Sn  3Sm
= 1.0 + [(1 - n)/ n (m - 1)](Sn /3Sm - 1), for 3Sm < Sn < 3mSm
= 1/ n, for Sn  3mSm
where: Sn = Primary + Secondary Stress Range
The values of the material parameters m and n for the various classes of permitted
materials are given as
n = 0.2 & m = 3.0 : for Carbon Steels
n = 0.2 & m = 2.0 : for Low Alloy Steels
n = 0.3 & m = 1.7 : for Austenitic Stainless Steels
(d) Use modified peak Salt (that is, KeSp/2) to enter design fatigue curve and find the
damage fraction as discussed earlier.
(f) The component meets the thermal ratcheting requirement for piping as discussed in
section 3.4
________________________________________________________________________
Plastic shakedown analysis

ASME suggests alternate Ratcheting & Fatigue Limits where detailed plastic shakedown
analysis is performed. In lieu of simplified Ratcheting and Fatigue assessment procedures
discussed earlier, one can opt for more comprehensive analysis. This may be required
due to following regions
 The requirements are not meeting using above discussed Simplified Elastic-
Plastic Analysis or thermal ratchet limits based on Bree diagram.
 When alternate limits based on Limit or Plastic or Experimental analysis are
invoked for satisfying the Design Condition requirements on Primary Membrane
+ Primary Bending [P m (or PL) + Pb]. For such cases the detailed ratcheting and
fatigue analysis based on cyclic plasticity is mandatory.
Alternate Ratcheting & Fatigue Limits based on Cyclic Plasticity Models
(a) The design is acceptable if it is shown that confirmed Plastic Shakedown occurs.
(b) If y / u < 0.7 then even if plastic shake down does not occur the design is
acceptable provided maximum accumulated local strain due to ratcheting  5%
(c) Peak Salt value, near the notch or concentration site (to be used for fatigue
assessment) is based on actual plastic analysis.
Peak Salt =  E / 2. ( = maximum principal strain range, and E is young‘s
modulus at the mean temperature of the cycles).
Special issues & current research in fatigue design

In the area of fatigue there are several issues, which are of practical interest and are focus
of current research. Some of these in the area of fatigue crack initiation are:
- The multiaxiality and non-proportionality (varying principal direction)
loading may result in significantly fatigue life when compared with that
under axial push-pull conditions for the same Salt value.
- Fatigue-Ratcheting synergy – leading to very early crack initiation
- Environmental effect on low cycle fatigue life & corrosion-fatigue
synergy also causes significant reduction in fatigue crack initiation life.
Conclusions
Prevention of failure of any structure has always been the main aim of the designer. The
integrity assessment of the pressure vessel and piping components is very essential for
safe and reliable operation of power plants. The loads which acts on the these structure /
________________________________________________________________________
component are of variable / fluctuating nature except for few types like dead load,
residual stresses etc. The material undergoes complex cyclic stressing during the
operational / service / accidental (such as earth quake) loading. In order to ensure high
reliability operation, designer has to prevent all the possible modes of failure under cyclic
loads. The material when undergoes cyclic loading can fail mainly by fatigue, ratcheting
or their combinations.
The assurance of fatigue resistance of Power Plant components/structures is a
very involved exercise both at design as well as operation stage. The typical Power Plant
has large variety of components whose fatigue resistance cannot be ascertained without
adopting systematic and rational approach. The assurance of fatigue resistance is
important from economic and safe operation of plant.
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (B&PV), Section III.
N. E. Dowling ―Mechanical Behaviour of Materials‖ Engineering method for
deformation, fracture and fatigue, Second Edition, Prentice Hall International, Inc.
John F. Harvey, P.E. ―Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels‖ CBS Publishers &
Distributers
Julie A Bannantine, J. J. Corner, J. L. Handrock, ―Fundamental of Metal Fatigue
Analyisis‖, Prentice Hall International, Inc.
Chapter-7
Elevated temperature design criteria:

ASME Section III-NH

Chapter 7: Elevated temperature design criteria: ASME Section III-NH
______________________________________________________________________________
Summary
Creep is defined as the tendency of a solid material to slowly move or deform permanently under
the influence of stresses. It occurs as a result of long term exposure to high levels of stresses that
are below the yield strength of the material. Creep is more severe in materials that are subjected
to heat for long periods, and near the melting point. Creep always increases with temperature.
The rate of this inelastic deformation is a function of the material properties, exposure time,
exposure temperature and the applied structural load.
One of the primary aims of a designer of equipments operating in the creep range is to avoid the
possibilities of failure by excessive deformation. Dimensional changes with time, even of the
order of a few milli-metres, leading to mismatch of components or contact between moving
parts, could lead to serious damage to the plant, not to mention the loss of human life and
revenue. Such conditions must obviously be considered as a failure criterion, even though there
may not have any material failure by cracking.
In order to be able to predict the deformation of components in the creep regime, it is necessary
to study the factors affecting the accumulation of strain in a simple tensile specimen. The
constitutive relations needed for such calculations can then be formed. Any method of predicting
the behavior of a component must be capable of calculating strain accumulation under variable
loading and temperature conditions. Stresses will be redistributed by the process of creep. At the
same time, the service conditions, e.g., the applied loadings by steam pressure, piping load,
temperature etc. will usually be changing. In addition, the state of stress will be multidimensional
(i.e., 3D state of stress) in most practical situations. Hence, a suitable constitutive model to
calculate deformation and stress redistribution in 3D continuum is the primary requirement for
any successful creep analysis procedure.
Components which operate at low temperatures below the creep regime are generally designed
on the basis of yield strength, tensile strength, and fatigue strength by applying suitable safety
factors to these values. Because deformation and fracture are not time-dependent under these
circumstances, there is no specific value of "design life" associated with them. In principle, as
long as the applied stresses do not exceed the design stresses, these components should last
indefinitely, although in practice various factors cause reductions in life. In the case of high-
temperature components operating in the creep regime, both deformation and fracture are time-
dependent. They are therefore designed with respect to a target life usually based on a specified
amount of allowable strain or rupture in 100,000 h. A further factor of safety is applied in
selecting the stress, which translates into an expected life of 30 to 40 years, leading to the notion
of a 30-40-year design life for the component. Many metallurgical and operational factors can
extend the actual component life beyond the design life. Alternatively, if these factors are
adverse, actual life can be reduced.
______________________________________________________________________________
In the early days, design of components was often based on linear extrapolation of short-time
creep and fatigue data to approximate the long term behavior. Long-term data are now available
for many standard materials as a result of international efforts to gather and analyze long-term
test data. In some instances it has been found that the original linear extrapolations may have
been overly conservative and that the actual expected lives may exceed the design lives. Most of
the creep and stress-rupture data used in designing high-temperature components are based on
small samples tested in air in the laboratory. For heavy-section components, the oxidation effects
may be less pronounced than for small specimens, resulting in an added margin of safety. All of
the above factors contribute to extended component life.
In contrast to the above factors, a number of other factors can lead to premature failure of
components. Stresses in components frequently exceed the design stresses as a result of hidden
residual stresses, system stresses, and local stress concentrations. For instance, in many piping
systems, bending stresses arise due to failure of supports. Operating temperatures in boilers
invariably exceed design temperatures at least over short durations, reducing component life.
Unanticipated start-up and shut-down cycles lead to fatigue damage not originally provided for.
Conversion of base load fossil power plants into cycling plants is a clear case in point.
Unanticipated environmental effects leading to corrosion, pitting, and stress corrosion are major
factors in life reduction.
Corrosion fatigue of steam turbine blades, stress corrosion of disks, and hot corrosion of
combustion turbine components are some examples of this. Pre-existing fabrication defects may
cause crack initiation and growth of cracks during service and lead to premature failures.
Inclusions, segregation streaks, reheat-cracking, slag inclusions in welds, lack of fusion,
incomplete penetration, and numerous other defects such as these have been known to cause
catastrophic failures. These defects have been of particular concern with respect to components
fabricated in the 1950's when fabrication procedures as well as non-destructive qualification
procedures were far inferior to those available today.
Extrapolation of short-time data to predict long-time behavior has also sometimes led to overly
optimistic expectations, the actual behavior being worse than the expected behavior. The creep-
rupture strength of 1.25Cr0.5Mo steels is a case in point, where a downward revision was made
in the allowable stresses specified by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code based on long-
term data that became available in the mid-1960's. The last but not the least important factor
adversely affecting component life is the in-service degradation of components due to various
micro-structural changes and embrittlement phenomena such as temper embrittlement and creep
embrittlement etc.
Prior to World War II, the design of pressure vessels was based on selecting the thickness such
that the maximum design pressure-induced stress in simple geometries was less than one-fifth
______________________________________________________________________________
the ultimate tensile strength. As a war emergency measure, this nominal factor of safety of five
was reduced to four. Based on the success of this step, the codes were revised to adopt this lower
factor of safety and questions arose as to the practicality of reducing the safety factor further.
However, as the design technology including material behavior advanced, concerns were raised
as to the need to include additional failure modes in the design of some vessels. These two
aspects led to the development of Section III in 1963 and Section VIII Division 2 in 1968. The
major conceptual change in these documents was in design, a change so significant that it was
termed "Design by Analysis" to distinguish it from the approach previously followed, "Design by
Rules." By and large the safety factors used in Design by Analysis were less conservative than
those used in Design by Rules.
The basic intent of the code was to address the requirements for new constructions while
providing reasonable assurance of reliable operation. Therefore, the requirements were primarily
addressed to the manufacturer, although an important role was assigned to the owner/user with
respect to defining the operational conditions to be considered by the manufacturer. The means
by which the owner/user fulfilled this assigned responsibility was the preparation of a design
specification.
Subsection NB of Section III of ASME B&PV Code provides design rules for Class 1
components at relatively low temperature 371°C or lower for ferritic steels and 427°C or lower
for austenitic steels and high-nickel alloys]. Subsection NH of Section III of the Code provides
design rules for Class 1 components at higher temperatures (593°C) or lower for ferritic steel,
760°C or lower for high-nickel alloys, and 816°C or lower for austenitic steels. Code Case N-
499-1 provides design rules for Class 1 pressure vessels at higher temperatures, in the range of
371°C to 538°C, for limited time. Code Case N-201-4 provides design rules for core support
structures, which are similar to those provided by Subsection NH. The draft code case for Alloy
617 provides design rules for Alloy 617 at very high temperature (982°C or lower). The
following code for high temperature design of the components is discussed in this chapter.
-ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Subsection NH, Class 1 Components in Elevated Temperature
Service,
The chapter has been concluded with several remarks on the salient features of the different
codes for design and life assessment of components operating in the elevated temperature
regime.
________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Creep is defined as the tendency of a solid material to slowly move or deform

permanently under the influence of stresses [1-3]. It occurs as a result of long term
exposure to high levels of stresses that are below the yield strength of the material. Creep
is more severe in materials that are subjected to heat for long periods, and near melting
point. Creep always increases with temperature. The rate of this deformation is a function
of the material properties, exposure time, exposure temperature and the applied structural
load. Depending on the magnitude of the applied stress and its duration, the deformation
may become so large that a component can no longer perform its function, for example,
creep of a turbine blade will cause the blade to contact the casing, resulting in the failure
of the blade. Creep is usually of concern to engineers and metallurgists when evaluating
components that operate under high stresses or high temperatures [4-23]. Creep is a
deformation mechanism that may or may not constitute a failure mode. Moderate creep in
concrete is sometimes welcomed because it relieves tensile stresses that might otherwise
lead to cracking. Unlike brittle fracture, creep deformation does not occur suddenly upon
the application of stress. Instead, strain accumulates as a result of long-term stress. Creep
is a "time-dependent" deformation.
Over the past few decades, engineers have aimed to increase the turbine inlet
temperatures in order to achieve higher efficiency. Different types of alloys and their
modification have been sought in order to improve the high temperature strength,
oxidation and creep properties of the materials. When significant resistance to loading
under static, fatigue and creep conditions is required, the nickel-base super-alloys have
emerged as the materials of choice for very high temperature applications. This is
particularly true when operating temperatures are beyond about 800 oC. This is the case
for gas turbines used for jet propulsion, for example, the 100 000 lb thrust engines used
for the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 and General Electric GE90 which power the Boeing 777,
but also the smaller 1000 lb engines used for helicopter applications. Gas turbines are
used also for electricity generation, for example, the 250MW gas-fired industrial plant
which can generate enough power to satisfy a large city of a million people, or the
smaller 3MW gas-fired generators suitable for back-up facilities.
When weight is a consideration, titanium alloys are used, but their very poor oxidation
resistance restricts their application to temperatures below about 700 oC. For the land-
based electricity-generating power plant applications which rely upon superheated steam
at 565 oC, high-strength creep-resistant ferritic steels are preferred on account of their
lower cost. However, the latest generation of ultra-supercritical steam-generating coal-
fired power stations requires boiler tubing that can last up to 200 000 hours at 750 oC and
100MPa of stress. New types of super-alloys are being developed for these applications,
________________________________________________________________________
since ferritic steels cannot be designed to meet these property requirements. Generally
speaking, ceramics such as silicon carbide and nitride are not used for these applications,
despite their excellent oxidation and creep resistance, due to their poor toughness and
ductility. Zirconia-based ceramics do, however, find applications in thermal barrier
coatings which are used in association with the super-alloys for high-temperature
applications. When designing a gas turbine engine, great emphasis is placed on the choice
of the turbine entry temperature (TET), the temperature of the hot gases entering the
turbine arrangement. There, the temperature falls as mechanical work is extracted from
the gas stream; therefore the conditions at turbine entry can be considered to be the most
demanding on the turbo-machinery and the nickel-based super-alloys from which are
they made.
DS: Directionally solidified cast alloys; CS: Single crystal cast alloys
Fig 1: Variation of turbine inlet temperature (TET) for aircraft gas turbine engines
over the years.
The performance of the engine is greatly improved if the TET can be raised. Over the last
50 years since their conception, this has provided the incentive and technological impetus
to enhance the temperature capability of the super-alloys, and to improve their processing
and the design of components fabricated from them. The success of these enterprises can
be judged from the way in which the TET of the large civil aero-engine has increased
since Whittle‘s first engine of 1940; a 700 oC improvement in a 60-year period has been
achieved [Fig. 1]. Similarly, the turbine inlet temperatures for steam turbines have
increased significantly over the years and the trend is shown in Fig. 2. Of course, the
TET varies greatly during a typical flight cycle being largest during the take-off and
________________________________________________________________________
climb to cruising altitude. Turbines for power-generating applications experience fewer
start-up/ power-down cycles but very much longer periods of operation, during which the
TET tends to be rather constant.
The slow deformation of metals, known as creep, first came clearly into focus about a
century ago. As a problem in metal use, it has grown steadily in importance because
engineers have persistently raised their operating temperatures in many fields, until now
it is one of the half-dozen most important of these problems. Besides the abundance of
technical data that has necessarily been accumulated, there have been many studies in the
last fifty years of the physics of creep. These physical studies have shown that there are
several different creep régimes depending mainly on the temperature. If T m is the melting
point of the metal in question, the different régimes roughly cover the temperature ranges
0-0.3 Tm, 0.3-0.5 Tm, 0.5-0.9 Tm and 0.9-1.0 Tm. The bottom range includes the so-called
logarithmic creep and the top range creep by diffusion, which is somewhat similar to
flow in liquids. Both are quite well understood but neither is particularly important as
compared to the temperature range of 0.3-0.9 Tm. It is this temperature range in which
creep worries engineers; they have therefore received much more attention by researchers
worldwide.
Fig. 2: Progress in turbine inlet temperature for steam turbines in fossil fuel fired
plants
________________________________________________________________________
In both of these temperature bands, the rate of creep strain is very dependent on
temperature, stress applied and composition of the metal. The temperature dependence is
no surprise, since it is quite clear that creep is a thermally activated phenomenon and its
rate is therefore governed by an Arrhenius factor. In many pure metals, the temperature
dependence is quantitatively close to that of self-diffusion, particularly in the 0.5-0.9 Tm
range. Research on development of suitable creep model is based two basic principles.
One assumes that the factor controlling creep rate lies in the deformation process, or glide
movement of dislocations, itself. The other assumes that the rate-controlling factor lies in
the continuous annealing that takes place at the high temperatures involved. The two
models are really two sides of the one coin, since both slip and recovery take place
simultaneously and are unavoidably interconnected. When the two models are properly
joined they explain the influence of composition, which may affect the creep rate by well
over a million-fold, and the great influence of stress as well as the temperature effect. The
parameters like diffusion rate, stress and stacking fault energy etc. are very important and
they influence the creep rate to a great extent [4-10].
Modern-day super-alloys deform very slowly even at high stresses and temperatures
(because of the advances in understanding of the creep deformation process and
development of suitable methods to arrest creep deformation). Hence, the problem of
creep-fracture becomes more important compared to creep-deformation. There is a
fracture mechanism quite distinctive to creep, in which tiny holes nucleate and grow (at
the grain boundaries) by some means until they are so large, or sufficiently linked
together, that the metal breaks. The speed of this fracture process increases with
temperature and stress, and evidently also depends on composition in a complicated way.
The formation and growth of the holes is a phase change process in which the stress
provides the driving free energy since the holes enlarge the overall dimensions. Both the
nucleation and growth rates help to determine the time to fracture, which is what really
matters. There are several important aspects of creep fracture such as the nature of many
of the nucleating sites and the strong influence of deformation rate during nucleation and
growth. Because of this, creep fracture is more complicated compared to creep-
deformation.
For the engineers, the phenomenon of creep is the source of many problems in design.
Foremost amongst these is the need for the generation of ways of predicting whether
components operating in the creep range will sustain the life required of them. The useful
life could be terminated because of (a) excessive deformation; (b) rupture; (c) crack
growth (by creep or creep-fatigue interaction). For most practical applications, the
predictive methods must be capable of accounting for complex loadings which vary with
time.
________________________________________________________________________
The first step usually taken by developers of codes of practice in design for elevated
temperature is to validate the component against its low-temperature duties. The first few
steps in the design process are therefore identical with those used in low-temperature
applications. The new element introduced by operation at elevated temperature is the
time factor. The number of stages in the design process then doubles, since each must be
checked against both time-independent and time-dependent criteria. In general, the
following failure modes must be checked, i.e.,
(a) General structural collapse (short-term primary limits);

(b) Primary limits under a sustained load;
(c) Incremental collapse under fluctuating load;
(d) Incremental growth or creep ratcheting;
(e) Fatigue under fluctuating load;
(f) Combined creep/fatigue;
(g) Defect tolerance or fast fracture;
(h) Defect tolerance for creep crack growth.
In order to standardize the design procedures, several codes have been developed in
different countries over the last few decades. These are listed below here.
-ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Subsection NH, Class 1 components in elevated
temperature service;
-RCC-MR, Design and construction rules for mechanical components of fast breeder
reactor nuclear islands (French Code);
-Procedure R5, Assessment procedures for the high temperature response of structures
(British Procedure);
-API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007 Fitness-for-service assessment procedures.
The salient features of these codes and the design procedures for high temperature
components are discussed in this chapter.
2. Creep deformation in high temperature components
The tendency of a material to undergo plastic deformation under the influence of a stress
is often characterized using a tensile test. In such a test, the strain is obtained as a
function of stress and the onset of permanent strain is taken to correspond to the yield
strength of the material. Tensile tests are, in general, conducted under conditions where
the measured properties are independent of time. By contrast, the essence of creep
deformation is that the plastic strain is time dependent and can occur at stresses that in an
ordinary tensile test would be below the yield stress.
________________________________________________________________________
Creep rupture Primary creep

Tertiary creep
Strain rate (/sec)

Tertiary creep
Total Strain
Secondary creep
Secondary creep
Primary creep
Instantaneous creep
Time (Hrs) Time (Hrs)
(a) (b)
Fig. 3: (a) Strain vs. time and (b) Strain rate vs. time during creep deformation process in
materials
In a typical uni-axial creep test, the sample is subjected to a constant load such that the
stress is below the yield strength, and the engineering strain is monitored as a function of
time, as illustrated in Fig. 3(a). The application of the load naturally leads to an
instantaneous elastic strain. This is followed by a primary creep regime in which the
strain rate decreases with time as the material settles down towards the steady state
regime, where there is a balance between dynamic recovery and strain hardening. The
creep rate accelerates during tertiary creep. A part of the reason for the increase in strain
rate is that the sample may neck so that the true stress increases. However, tertiary creep
can occur before the onset of necking, induced by the accumulation of creep damage
(e.g., voids).
Fig. 3(a) shows a schematic representation of the stages of creep deformation and Fig.
3(b) shows the variations in the creep rate. Creep data can be plotted as in Fig. 3(b) in
order to identify the minimum creep strain rate. The three stages of creep are also evident
in these plots; in the primary region the creep rate decreases with time, whereas in the
tertiary region it accelerates. Steady-state creep is roughly centered at the minimum in the
plot of creep rate vs. time [Fig. 3(b)]. The minimum rate is empirically found to be
inversely proportional to the time to rupture. This is often called the Monkman–Grant
relationship in which the product of the minimum creep rate and rupture time is found to
be constant for a given creep mechanism.
The extent of each of the stages in the creep curve can vary dramatically with the
temperature, stress, and material. Actual creep curves for a variety of ferritic steels with
different chromium contents are illustrated in Fig. 4. The 2Cr steels are not really
________________________________________________________________________
designed for operation at temperatures as high as 600 oC. It is expected, therefore, that
there is a rapid onset of tertiary creep. Alternatively, the 12Cr alloy exhibits a prolonged
steady-state creep regime, since such alloys are intended for service at the test
temperature of 600oC.
3. Micro-mechanisms of creep deformation

Engineering materials are crystalline but imperfect, with defects such as vacancies,
dislocations, and grain boundaries. There are many mechanisms of creep deformation at
the micro-scale, such as diffusion-creep, dislocation-creep and dislocation-glide etc. The
diffusion creep process occurs over a wide range of temperatures. It occurs mainly
because of diffusion of vacancies, interstitials and atoms etc. through the crystal mainly
at low temperatures.
At higher temperatures, the non-equilibrium concentrations of vacancies tend to rapidly

anneal out and hence only have transient effects on diffusion; an exception is materials
subjected to irradiation in which case there will be a persistent source of excess vacancies
due to displacement damage by irradiation. Alternatively, dislocations and grain
boundaries provide easy diffusion paths through the material. The grain boundary
diffusion coefficient is much greater than that associated with the perfect structure.
However, the fraction of the sample that can be identified with the grain boundaries is
small when compared the material between the boundaries. Consequently, grain
boundary or defect diffusion (Cobble creep) only makes a large contribution to the net
diffusion flux at low temperatures.
It follows that at high temperatures, the diffusion flux is dominated by diffusion through
the bulk of the material (Nabarro-Herring creep), whereas at low temperatures it becomes
dominated by diffusion through defects. The flux of matter that leads to the plastic strain
is at low temperatures largely through defects, such as the grain boundaries or the cores
of dislocations. By contrast, most of the observed effects are due to bulk diffusion when
the tests are done at high temperatures. We now consider some important mechanisms of
creep.
________________________________________________________________________
Creep strain rate (/Sec)

Increasing Cr %
in steel
Strain
Increasing Cr %
in steel
Time (Hrs)
Time (Hrs)
(a) (b)
Fig. 4: Effect of chromium composition in ferritic steel on (a) creep strain vs.
time and (b) creep strain rate vs. time behaviour
1.0e-1
Plastic deformation
1.0e-2
Homologous stress
Dislocation
creep Bulk
diffusion
1.0e-3
Elastic Bulk diffusion
deformation
1.0e-4 Boundary
diffusion
1.0e-5
0 0.5 1.0
Homologous temperature
Fig. 5: Deformation mechanism map or Ashby map
The mechanisms of creep can conveniently be summarized using a deformation

mechanism map (Fig. 5), which identifies the domains in a plot of homologous stress
(applied stress/ shear modulus) vs. homologous temperature (operating temperature/
melting point of the material in K), where a particular creep mechanism dominates. The
________________________________________________________________________
domain boundaries are defined by the locus of points where the strain rate for two or
more mechanisms becomes identical.
3.1 Dislocation Creep
At low strain rates and relatively low temperatures, creep occurs by the glide of slip
dislocations. Diffusion-assisted dislocation climb is necessary for continued deformation
when the glide process is obstructed, e.g., by the presence of precipitates in the glide
plane. An applied stress assists the climb process via a force (Fig. 6), which tends to push
the dislocation onto a parallel plane, such that it can bypass the particle (Fig. 7). If the
climb force exerted by the precipitate on the dislocation is not sufficient to overcome the
precipitate by climb, the dislocation will get stuck at the interface. However, when
applied the shear stress is high, the dislocation may shear the precipitate and this process
dominates the creep mechanism (Fig. 8).
3.2 Diffusion Creep
At a sufficiently high temperature and low strain rate, it is possible to achieve plastic
deformation simply by the stress-induced migration of vacancies, almost akin to fluid
flow where the strain rate during Newtonian viscous flow is proportional to the stress. In
the Nabarro–Herring version of diffusion creep, the flow of matter occurs by diffusion
through the lattice (bulk diffusion) as explained in Fig. 9 and seen in actual
microstructure (Fig. 10).
In case of Coble creep (Low strain rate and low temperature), it is dominated by diffusion
through the grain boundary structure. Both of these processes require the grains to slide
past each other in order to maintain continuity and hence avoid void formation. Harper–
Dorn is another special form of creep in which the constitutive equation is similar to
diffusion creep, but the mechanism involves the climb of dislocations (low dislocation
density) in a large grain-sized material, so that grain boundary diffusion does not play a
major role. Furthermore, Harper–Dorn creep occurs by an intra-granular dislocation
mechanism, so that grain elongation occurs without a need for grain boundary sliding.
4. Estimation methods for creep strains
Though the creep curves show three regions of creep, i.e., primary, secondary and tertiary
in a constant-load test, the tertiary region is absent or gets delayed in a constant-stress
creep test. The tertiary creep also doesn‘t have much engineering significance from the
designer point of view and most of the times; it is not taken into consideration. The
estimation for strain due to primary and tertiary creep is given by two famous models, i.e,
________________________________________________________________________
Andrade‘s and Garoffalo‘s equation as given below. Out of these two, the Andrade‘s
equation is mostly used.
Shear stress 
 b tan 
 Glide plane
b
Precipitate
Shear stress 
Fig. 6: The climb force on a dislocation which assist the dislocations to pass through
obstacles
Fig. 7: Evidence of dislocation climb in during high temperature deformation of
________________________________________________________________________
nickel based superalloys and the schematic explanation
Fig. 8: Evidence of precipitate shearing by dislocations during low temperature

deformation of nickel based superalloys and the schematic explanation
Boundary
diffusion
 Bulk 
diffusion
________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 9: Nabarro-Herring model for diffusion creep.
Fig. 10: Anti-phase boundary shearing of precipitate and subsequent diffusion

assisted creep in nickel based superalloys during the intermediate temperature
deformation process.
4.1 Andrade’s equation for creep strain

   0 1   t1/3  ekT (89)
where t is time, k is Boltzman‘s constant, T is temperature in Kelvin,  is a constant for
transient creep,  0 is the instantaneous strain due to elastic deformation and  is the total
strain at any time t.
4.2 Garoffalo’s equation for creep strain

   0   t 1  e rt   sst (90)
where t is time, r is the ratio of transient creep rate to the transient creep strain,  0 is the
instantaneous strain due to elastic deformation,  t is the limit for transient creep, ss is
the steady state creep strain rate and  is the total strain at any time t.
5. Modeling of continuum creep damage
The creep damage can be modeled by a parameter  , which is the ratio of effective area
to the initial area at any time of creep deformation. The effective area reduces because of
creep-cavitation and cracking. Our aim here is to find continuum damage rule, which can
________________________________________________________________________
be applied for life estimation in a component when subjected to a complex loading
history. It is described as below. We define the creep damage as 1   , where  is
defined as
Aeff
 (91)
A0
The initial stress  0 is written in terms of load F and initial area A0 as
 0  F A0 (92)
The stress at any time t can be written as
 t  F Aeff   0  (93)
The rate of change of damage can be defined as dependent on stress through a power law
(as creep strain rate has a similar relationship w.r.t stress), i.e.,
d  
n
 C tn  C  0  (94)
dt 
It may be noted that as damage increases from 0 to 1 from initial time to rupture time, the
function  varies from 1 to 0.
The boundary conditions are:   1 at time t=0 and   0 at time t=tr0. Now,
integrating the above equation and using the boundary conditions, we get the rupture time
under the nominal stress  0 as
1
tr 0  (95)
C  n  1  0n
If we have a variable loading condition, then the integration can be written as
0 tr
  d    C
n n
0,t dt (96)
1 0
where  0,t is the stress at any time‗t‘. Now, re-arranging the terms, it leads to the
following equation.
tr
1=  C  n  1  0,t n dt (97)
0
If we substitute the rupture time tr at the stress  0,t as

1
tr  (98)
C  n  1  0,n t
in the above Eq. (97), we get the following integral expression.
tr
dt
t
0 r
1 (99)
This is also known as Robinson‘s time fraction rule and is written in discrete form as
________________________________________________________________________
n
ti
t
i 1
1 (100)
ri
where ti is the operating time at any stress  i for which the creep rupture time is tri .
6. Creep hardening under variable loading conditions
When we estimate the creep strain as a functioned stress, it is assumed that creep
deformation occurs at the constant stress. However, due to change in the stress condition,
there is a change in creep hardening.
2 2
Creep Strain
Stress
1
t0
Time Time
Fig. 11: Creep under variable loading Fig. 12: Different models for creep
hardening
This is given by various models such as strain hardening, time hardening and total
hardening etc. which are described below. Fig. 11 shows the stress change from
1 to  2 and Fig. 12 shows how the strain due to creep changes because of hardening.
Fig. 12 shows three paths, i.e., path 1, 2 and 3 for time hardening, strain hardening and
total hardening respectively. The time hardening follows the slope of the curve for  2 at
the same time t0 which the time for change from stress  1 to  2 . The strain hardening
follows the slope of the curve for  2 which at the same creep strain as  1 at time t0 . The
total hardening rule jumps from one curve to the other and follows the curve for  2 after
the time t0 . Out of these three theories, the strain hardening theory gives results which
are close to experimental observation whereas the time hardening theory gives a lower
bound solution and the total hardening theory gives an upper bound solution.
________________________________________________________________________
7. Creep under multi-axial stress conditions
The creep strain-rates under multi-axial stress conditions are determined by following the
analogy of plastic deformation under multi-axial stress condition. The analogy of Levi-
Mises flow rule in plastic deformation in creep deformation can be written as
d   1 
d 1  eq 1   2   3 
  2
eq 
d eq  1 
d 2   2  1   3  (101)
 eq  2 
d   1 
d 3  eq  3  1   2 
  eq 2 
where d1 , d 2 and d 3 are the principal strain rates which are expressed in terms of von-
Mises equivalent stress  eq and strain rates eq respectively.  1 ,  2 , and  3 are the
principal stresses in direction 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
8. Models for prediction of creep rupture lives of components
We know that creep properties are determined at certain stress and temperature
conditions. However, to apply these theories to other stress and temperature conditions,
we need to do some extrapolation with the help of empirical based derived based on the
experimental observation. More than 30 of such models are available in literature out of
which Larson-Miller parameter is most widely used. We will describe below six of such
models. Usually, the tests are done at accelerated conditions to get creep rupture at less
time. But, for design of components, which have considerable long life, we need
extrapolation with proper judgment.
1
2
 3   2  1
log (t)
3
1/T
Fig. 13: Larson-Miller relationship
________________________________________________________________________
8.1 Larson-Miller paramer
The variation of logarithm of rupture time ―t‖ vs inverse of temperature in oR is shown in

Fig. 13. The condition for its application is that one should fit this parameter for the set of
experimental results that follow this graph. Mathematically, it is written as
PLM    T  log t  C  (102)
where temperature T is in degree Rankine, rupture time is in hours, C is a material
constant and its value is taken as 20 for many materials. PLM is the Larson-Miller
parameter and it is a function of applied equivalent stress  .
1
2
log (t)
 3   2  1
3
1/T
Fig. 14: Orr-Shorby-Dorn relationship

2 3
ta 1
log (t)
 3   2  1
Ta T
Fig. 15: Manson-Harferd relationship
________________________________________________________________________
3
2
1
tw
log (t)
 3   2  1
1/Tw 1/T
Fig. 16: White-Lemay relationship

log (t)
.
minimum creep rate  s
Fig. 17: Monkman and Grant relationship
________________________________________________________________________
8.2 Orr-Shorby-Dorn parameter
The variation of logarithm of rupture time ―t‖ vs inverse of temperature in K is shown in

 Q 
PSD    t exp    (103)
 RT 
where Q is the activation energy, T is temperature in Kelvin, R is universal gas constant, t
is rupture time in hours. Similar to Larson-Miller parameter PLM , Shorby-Dorn parameter
PSD is also a function of applied equivalent stress  .
8.3 Manson-Harferd parameter
The variation of logarithm of rupture time ―t‖ vs temperature in K is shown in Fig. 15.
The condition for its application is that one should fit this parameter for the set of
T  Ta
PMH    (104)
log t  log ta
8.4 White-Lemay parameter
The variation of logarithm of rupture time ―t‖ vs inverse of temperature in K is shown in

1 1

Tw T
PWL    (105)
log tw  log t
8.5 Monkman-Grant law
The variation of rupture time vs. steady state creep strain rate is expresses as (Fig. 17)
log t  c1 log s  c2 (106)
where c1 and c2 are constants, s is the steady state creep strain rate (it is a function of
applied stress and temperature) and is written as
 Q
s  A n exp    (107)
 kT 
where k is Boltzmann‘s constant.
________________________________________________________________________
8.6 Minimum commitment method
This method is to be followed when none of the above parameters fit the experimental
data accurately. This method is based on fitting of functions and parameters based on
actual experimental observation. The governing equation is written as
log t  z1P T  log t  P T   z2 log   (108)
where P T  is a function of temperature, A, z1 and z2 are the constants which are
determined through regression by fitting the experimental data to the above equation. The
constant z1 is related to the stability of micro-structure of the material.
9. Creep stress relaxation and stress relieving
In the case of stress relieving operations, we need to find time and temperature for post
weld heat treatment. This problem can be solved using the modeling method for creep
stress relaxation from a given initial stress  0 to the desired final stress  t . This model
can also be applied to determine the tightening stress that to be applied to nuts where
there is relaxation under high operating temperature conditions. The model is described
below along-with the Fig. 18.
0
t
t Time
Fig. 18: Creep stress relaxation
The method lies in the fact that the total strain, which is initially fully elastic and later, is
the superposition of elastic and inelastic creep strain remains constant with respect to
time. So,
 0   initial   el  t    creep  t   c1 (109)
________________________________________________________________________
where c1 is a constant which is equal to the initial strain  0 . The initial strain is given by
 0 E and the elastic strain at any time ‗t‘ is given as   t  E . The initial strain doesn‘t
change with time and hence, we can write
d 0 d el  t  d creep  t 
  0 (110)
dt dt dt
Substituting the values of  el  t  and  creep  t  as a function of stress in the above equation,
we get
1 d  t 
 A   t   0
n
(111)
E dt
Rearranging the above equation and integrating, we get the time for relaxation of stress
from initial value of  0 to   t  as
 1  1     t  n1 
t  1     (112)
 BE  n  1    t  
n 1

   0  
10. Irradiation creep
Radiation affects the micro-mechanism related to creep by disrupting the internal

structure of the material. Its manner is unpredictable. Therefore, it is desirable to
determine the creep parameters under actual operating conditions. The mechanism of
irradiation creep is attributable to atomic dislocation climb by the absorption of
irradiation-induced vacancies. Due the production of excess defects, irradiation can
accelerate creep. Irradiation creep is not strongly dependent on temperature, primarily
because the formation of vacancies and self-interstitials is provided by energetic atomic
displacement rather than by thermal processes. Creep is most important in reactor
applications in regions of intermediate temperature, high neutron/ion flux and low stress.
Irradiation significantly increases the creep rate over that due to thermal creep, or induces
creep in temperature regimes where thermal creep is negligible. Both stainless steels and
zirconium alloys exhibit irradiation creep rates that are significantly larger than thermal
creep rates at the same temperature. In fact, at light water reactor core temperatures,
thermal creep is negligible, but the irradiation creep rate can exceed 1e-6 per second.
Irradiation increases the numbers of interstitials and vacancies in the solid, but the effect
of this increase is not merely to accelerate thermal creep. In fact, irradiation does not
accelerate diffusional creep rates. Rather, irradiation creep needs to be understood in the
context of enhanced defect production, the application of a stress and the developing
irradiation microstructure.
The formation and growth of loops and voids play important roles in the creep process.
The stress-induced nucleation of dislocation loops and the bowing of dislocation lines by
________________________________________________________________________
stress-assisted preferential absorption of interstitials can account for the transient portion
of the creep behavior, but climb and glide are required to explain steady state creep. The
irradiation creep rate is dependent on dose rate, temperature and stress as well as the
developing microstructure. Following are the different mechanisms of irradiation assisted
creep.
(a) Stress-Induced Preferential Nucleation of Loops (SIPN)

(b) Stress-Induced Preferential Absorption (SIPA)
(c) Climb and Glide due to Preferential Absorption (PAG)
(d) Climb and Glide Driven by Dislocation Bias
10.1 Stress-Induced Preferential Nucleation of Loops (SIPN)
The application of an external stress can enhance the probability of interstitial loops
nucleating on planes with a preferred orientation. Interstitial loops will be more likely to
nucleate on planes perpendicular to an applied tensile stress than parallel to the stress.
Vacancy loops will be less likely to nucleate on planes perpendicular to the tensile stress
and more likely to nucleate on planes parallel to the stress. In either case, such
preferential loop nucleation will cause the solid to increase in length in the direction of
the applied tensile stress. This process is termed the stress-induced preferential
nucleation, SIPN mechanism of irradiation creep.
Whether SIPN can accurately account for the observed creep strains is a matter of
considerable debate. While observations have supported an increase in preferred loop
orientation with tensile stress, the magnitude of the measured creep strain is higher than
can be accounted for by preferred orientation by a factor of 2-4. The greatest limitation of
the model is that once a loop is nucleated, the strain rate is determined by the irradiation
dose, but is independent of stress. Thus, creep should continue if the stress is removed
once nucleation has been completed. Also, if nucleation occurs before the stress is
applied, creep should not then occur. Clearly, SIPN cannot account for all of the observed
creep, but it may be a viable mechanism for a portion of the observed creep strain rate. A
compliment to loop nucleation is preferential absorption of defects by loops caused by
the applied stress.
10.2 Stress-Induced Preferential Absorption (SIPA)
At steady state, there are several distinct processes that may result in creep of a solid
under irradiation and stress. They are: (a) the transfer of atoms from planes parallel to the
applied stress to those are perpendicular to the applied stress; (b) the glide of dislocations
on planes inclined to the stress direction; and (c) the climb and glide of dislocations due
________________________________________________________________________
to the interstitial bias of the dislocation. The first is termed stress-induced preferential
absorption (SIPA) and the second process is termed preferred absorption glide (PAG).
PAG results from preferred absorption (SIPA) but is an additional component to the
creep strain since it describes the glide contribution to the creep strain whereas SIPA
describes only the climb contribution to creep strain. The third mechanism is creep strain
from the climb and glide process due to the net absorption of interstitials on dislocations
of all orientations (i.e., unassisted by stress) for the case where the defect source is the
excess interstitials. Note that this process is tied to swelling as the corresponding net
excess of vacancies accumulates at cavities causing swelling. The origin of the preferred
absorption is the interaction between the dislocation and defects. In conventional SIPA,
the origin is the elastic interaction between the long-range stress field of the dislocation
and that of the defect. Other origins for SIPA are anisotropic diffusion and elasto-
diffusion. While differing in the details of the origin of the interaction, all of these
mechanisms result in a preferred absorption of interstitials by dislocations.
10.3 Climb and Glide due to Preferential Absorption (PAG)
While SIPA provides a mechanism for creep by dislocation climb, dislocations can also
contribute to creep by glide if they are able to overcome obstacles in their slip plane by
the climb process. Under an applied stress, pinned dislocations will glide until they reach
a configuration where the restoring force due to line tension is balanced by the applied
stress. Since dislocations are pinned, creep is limited to the elastic stress given by ε = σ
/E. Climb enables the dislocation to overcome the initial pinning points. The released
segments bow out between new pinning points until, again, the line tension balances the
applied stress. Each cycle of climb and glide to pinning results in an elastic deflection in
addition to the strain due to climb, which together, account for the total creep strain in the
solid, all the while, the dislocation network maintains its configuration. This mechanism
has also been referred to as ―transient creep‖ because of its occurrence at low dose.
However, since the dislocation lines can continue to bow out after climbing over pinning
points, it can also account for steady state creep.
10.4 Climb and Glide Driven by Dislocation Bias
The preceding analysis describes creep that is driven by stress-induced preferential

absorption of interstitials at dislocations. The creep rate has both climb as well as glide
components and the creep process is governed by dislocation segment bowing following
climb to free the segment from the pinning points. Here we consider creep that is driven
by the dislocation bias rather than preferential absorption. Clearly in order for there to be
a net absorption of interstitials by dislocations requires that there is an equivalent net
absorption of vacancies by other sinks in the solid. These sinks are assumed to be voids.
________________________________________________________________________
Creep due to the excess absorption of interstitials at dislocations is equivalent to the
thermal creep climb and glide mechanisms. However, the creep is due to absorption of
vacancies by voids and hence, it contributes to creep and swelling.
10.5 Remarks on Irradiation-assisted creep
The deformation mechanism map for the materials is usually modified to account for
irradiation creep. Irradiation creep is observable in the intermediate temperature regime.
Below 20oC, the interstitial mobility drops and so does the irradiation creep-rate. Above
about 600oC, Coble creep is the dominant creep mechanism. The irradiation creep
regime, therefore, lies at intermediate temperature and intermediate stresses and can be
described by the constitutive equation for the strain rate dependence of irradiation creep
in which the first term is due to dislocation creep (lower temperature portion of
irradiation creep regime) and the second term is due to swelling-driven creep (higher
temperature portion). The net effect of irradiation is to extend rate-dependent deformation
to lower stresses.
In addition to swelling and creep, another phenomenon occurs that leads to strains in
some solids under irradiation. This phenomenon is termed growth. Swelling is the
isotropic volume expansion of a solid without an external stress. Creep is the volume
conservative distortion of a solid under an applied stress. Growth is the volume
conservative distortion of a solid without an applied stress. Growth is only observed in
non-cubic systems as it is highly dependent on anisotropy of the crystal structure. For this
reason, irradiation growth can be significant in hcp metals such as zirconium and
magnesium.
Exercise-1
A design established on a creep rupture basis of 1000oF at 1E05 hours is required to

operate at 1100oF. What is the estimated service life? Use Larson-Miller parameter.
Exercise-2
The properties of a material have been qualified at a stress-relieving temperature of
1150oF for 50 hours. A vessel made from this material undergoes a two-hour temperature
excursion to 1180oF during stress relieving operation. What is the equivalent of this
excursion in terms of hours at the material qualification temperature? Use Larson-Miller
parameter.
________________________________________________________________________
Exercise-3
A jet engine component initially designed for 1E04 hours of life at 1000oF with a stress
of 12000 Psi. After 1E03 hours of operation, a malfunction subjects the component to a
stress of 15000 Psi at 1100oF. What is the predicted remaining life? If the malfunction is
corrected after 10 hours and the operation is returned to 12000 Psi and 100 oF, what will
be the remaining life? Use Larson-Miller parameter and the standard Larson-Miller chart
for variation of Larson-Miller parameter vs stress. Use a suitable material for jet engine
components.
Exercise-4
The initial residual stress in a weld joint after welding is measured to be 100 Mpa
whereas the yield stress of the material is 250 Mpa. The designer wants that the residual
stress should not exceed 20 Mpa in any case. You are required to do a post weld heat
treatment for the weld joint in order to reduce the residual stress. The material is a low
alloy steel. Use a suitable temperature for heat treatment. Find the time required for the
stress relieving operation. Use suitable material properties.
11. Creep-fatigue interaction
It is known that the damage accumulation takes place under cyclic loading and it can be
attributed to either HCF or LCF depending upon the magnitude of the stress component,
operating temperature and whether stress or strain is the governing mechanism. However,
there is thermal cycling at high temperature where creep is dominant, there can be a
synergistic effect of damage accumulation due to both creep and fatigue and this
phenomenon is called creep-fatigue interaction. We will deal with this chapter from a
point of view of calculating life for crack initiation and also crack growth due to creep-
fatigue interaction by use of two different approaches, i.e., the conventional method and
the fracture mechanics route.
11.1 Fatigue life prediction
One of the earliest ideas in fatigue is that a material will fail when the net work expended
(accumulated area of hysteresis loops) reaches a critical value. This was taken up by
Miner in 1945 on some room-temperature tests on aluminum, although the simple
damage-accounting procedure had been proposed earlier by Palmgren in 1924 for
assessing the life of ball bearings and by Langer in 1937 for both crack initiation and
growth in pressure vessel and piping components. Miner‘s hypothesis was originally
expressed in energy terms but he showed that this could equally well be expressed as
________________________________________________________________________
k
ni
N
i 1
1 (113)
i
where ni represents the cycles experienced and Ni is the endurance over each cycle of
type i. Thus use could be made of a family of endurance curves at different stress levels.
Miner defined failure as ‗‗the inception of a crack‖.
11.2 Creep life prediction
In a similar vein, Robinson in 1952 by considering stress–rupture plots of turbine alloys

in the region 540 to 680oC proposed, as interpreted by one commentator, ‗‗a
mathematical accounting system in which operating hours at various stress and
temperature levels can be evaluated on the basis of existing creep data, under the
assumption that changes from one operating level to another, or rest periods during which
the machine returns to no-load or room-temperature conditions, have no effect on creep
behavior‘‘. In mathematical term, it is written as
k
ti

i 1 tri
1 (114)
which Robinson verified in terms of an equivalent stress or temperature, use being made
of a family of stress–rupture plots at different temperatures. Dyson has examined in some
detail the physical justification for the rule and concludes that it is more likely to be
obeyed when temperature excursions are made at constant stress rather than when stress
excursions are made at constant temperature.
11.3 Strain fraction rule
There is also a strain fraction rule, which is used to estimate creep damage when the
material is such that it experiences appreciable creep cracking throughout the life of the
component. It is written as
k
i

i 1
1 (115)
ri
where  i is the applied strain and  ri is the corresponding strain for rupture at the applied
stress and temperature conditions.
11.4 Combined rule for Creep-Fatigue interaction (defect free structures)
It may be noted that although Miner verified his rule by sequential tests under load
control (up to 1E07 cycles and assuming no work hardening), Equations for both fatigue
and creep life estimation gradually came to be adopted for application in the LCF regime
up to 1E05 cycles. The rule is written as
________________________________________________________________________
k
ni ti
N
i 1

tri
1 (116)
i
This came from the realization that assessments may be made from a large body of
existing creep–rupture data and relatively simple LCF tests, thus attempting to embrace
the intergranular/ transgranular failure mechanism of combined tests. One immediate
disadvantage was that in many practical cases, deformation occurs by repeated stress
relaxation rather than by forward creep.
1
Fatigue damage
b2
b1
c
Creep damage 1
Fig. 19: Different damage accumulation rules for creep fatigue interaction
There exists very little experimental validation for Miner‘s law itself for LCF under
continuous cycling at elevated temperature, i.e., where reversed plasticity is entailed.
Accumulated damage may be dependent on history. Cases involving ‗‗major‘‘ and
‗‗minor‘‘ cycling and ‗‗incremental step‘‘ tests have been reviewed by several
researchers. Most investigations during the last decades or so have rather attempted to
demonstrate that the creep–fatigue interaction can in fact reduce the fractional damage
below unity. Hence several models were developed to deal with the prediction of life of
components under creep-fatigue interaction. We will mainly discuss three methods as
described below.
(i) Damage accumulation rule

(ii) Strain range partitioning method
(iii) Modification of high temperature fatigue relationships to take into account the effect
of frequency of loading.
11.5 Damage accumulation rule
There are several damage accumulation rules that have been suggested by the
researchers. These are
________________________________________________________________________
a. Linear damage summation rule
b. Parabolic (or other nonlinear) damage accumulation rule
c. Bi-linear damage summation rule.
These are shown graphically in Fig. 19.
11.6 Strain range partitioning method
This rule involves partitioning the actual stress-strain curve in a complex loading cycle in
terms of four basic cycles as shown in Fig. 20 to 23. For example, a typical stress-strain
cycle is shown in Fig. 24. The total strain range is AD in Fig. 24.
Stress
Strain
Fig. 20:  pp cycle in strain range partitioning method

Stress
Strain
Fig. 21:  cc cycle in strain range partitioning method
________________________________________________________________________
Stress
Strain
Fig. 22:  pc cycle in strain range partitioning method
Stress
Strain
Fig. 23:  cp cycle in strain range partitioning method

Stress
A B C D
Strain
total
Fig. 24: A typical cyclic stress-strain curve where the effective number of cycles to
failure to be calculated by strain range partitioning
________________________________________________________________________
The rule for selecting different strain cycles is given below.
(i) Select smaller of the fully plastic strain cycle and denote it as  pp .
(i) Select smaller of the fully creep strain cycle and denote it as  cc .
(iii) Find the remaining cycle as  pc or  cp .
 pp
  pc
 cc
 cp
 total
Ncp N cc N pc N pp
N
Fig. 25: Strain vs.
Fig.number
15.7:of Strain
cycles forvs
failure for different
number conditions of cyclic
of cycles
strain cycles
for failure for different condition of
cyclic strain cycles
In the example given in Fig. 24, the strains are determined as:  pp =BD,  cc =CD,
 pc =AC-DB as the plastic deformation in tensile is more than the creep deformation in
tensile. The calculation of equivalent no .of cycles for failure is based on Coffin-
Manson‘s plastic damage interaction rule and is written as
1 F F F F
 pp  pc  cc  cp (117)
N predicted N pp N pc Ncc Ncp
 pp  pc  cc  cp
where Fpp  , Fpc  , Fcc  , Fcp  and N pp , N pc , Ncc and Ncp etc
total total total total
are the number of cycles to failure under the corresponding cyclic loading conditions and
it is shown in Fig. 25.
________________________________________________________________________
11.7 Frequency modified fatigue failure relationships
At high temperatures, the environmental effects become more important when dealing
with estimation of damage due to creep and fatigue. So, the effect of frequency must be
considered. It is taken care of by replacing number of cycles N by N k 1 in the low cycle
fatigue equation. So, the Coffin-Manson relation for LCF is modified for effect of
frequency as
 p  N k 1   C1
c
(118)
where k and C1 are material constants. Similarly, the Basquin‘s relationship for high
cycle fatigue is modified as
  f
 2N k 1   k 
b
 e   (119)
E E
This can be rearranged as
A b  k 1bk 
 e 
N (120)
E
where k and k  are material constants. Now, the combined HCF and LCF strain life
equation modified for frequency can be written as
 C1  N k 1 
A' b  k 1bk ' c
   e   p  N . (121)
E
This model is very useful for predicting failure cycles in high temperature fatigue
situations. However, the number of constants to be determined by data regression
analysis are too many and sometimes, it is difficult to apply for complex creep-fatigue
cycles.
11.8 Combined rule for Creep-Fatigue interaction (structures with defect)
In the presence of defects in structures, the conventional rule for assessing damage due to
creep-fatigue interaction doesn‘t suffice. We have to consider the fracture mechanics
procedure, i.e, modified Paris law for fatigue crack growth and universal creep crack
growth law for creep crack growth estimation. This is expressed mathematically as
da  da   da 
     Thold (122)
dN  dN fatigue  dt creep
where Thold is the time period for which the stress is constant (known as hold time) and
creep is because of this sustained stress in the hold time. The fatigue crack growth per
number of cycles is given as
 da 
 C  Keff 
n
 dN  (123)
 fatigue
________________________________________________________________________
where Keff is the effective stress intensity factor in the loading cycle. If there is
significant plastic deformation in cyclic loading, Keff has to be replaced by J with
suitable modification of the crack growth law constants and taking into account of the
effect of crack closure on J . The creep crack growth rate can be written as
 da 
 

 dt   D C* (124)
 creep
if the condition for steady state creep is achieved. In the case of transient creep, C* has to
be replaced by the suitable C(t) integral. However, an estimate of the transition time has
to be made and finally, the validity criteria as per R5 procedure has to be satisfied if one
uses the C* integral in the creep crack growth calculation.
12. ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Subsection NH
Subsection NH of ASME B&PV Code, Section III, provides high-temperature design

rules for construction of Class 1 components having metal temperatures exceeding those
covered by the rules and stress limits of Subsection NB and Tables 2A, 2B, and 4 of
Section II, Part D, Subpart 1. Table 1 lists the materials included in Subsection NH along
with the maximum temperatures permitted.
Table-1: Maximum allowable temperatures for the materials included in Subsection NH

Material Maximum Allowable Metal Temperature, °C
(Maximum allowable time at this temperature is 300,000 hours)
304 SS 816
316 SS 816
Alloy 800H 760
2.25 Cr-1 Mo 593
(Higher temperature (649°C) is allowed for the maximum allowable
time of 1,000 hours at this temperature)
Alloy 718 566
12.1 High-Temperature Design Rules
The first step in design for elevated temperature is to design the component for low
temperature operation. The first few steps in the design process are, therefore, identical
with those used in low-temperature applications. Operation at elevated temperature
introduces time-dependent failure modes. Thus, in addition to the six time-independent
failure modes, the following six time-dependent failure modes are considered in the high-
temperature design:
________________________________________________________________________
1) Creep rupture under sustained primary loading,
2) Excessive creep deformation under sustained primary loading,
3) Cyclic creep ratcheting due to steady primary and cyclic secondary loading,
4) Creep-fatigue due to cyclic primary, secondary, and peak stresses,
5) Creep crack growth and non-ductile fracture, and
6) Creep buckling.
Rules are given in Subsection NH to protect against these failure modes using elastic and,
in some cases, either elastic or elastic-plastic analysis techniques.
12.2 Material Properties Database Needed
To carry out high-temperature design, the following mechanical properties as functions of

temperature are needed, from which the design allowable values are derived after
applying appropriate safety factors:
1) Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio (average),

2) Yield strength (average and minimum),
3) Ultimate tensile strength (average and minimum),
4) Stress-strain curves (average and minimum),
5) Stress vs. creep rupture time for base metals and their weldments (average and
minimum),
6) Stress vs. time to 1% total strain (average),
7) Stress vs. time to onset of tertiary creep (minimum),
8) Constitutive equations for conducting time- and temperature-dependent stress-strain
analysis (average),
9) Isochronous stress-strain curves (average), [Isochronous curves are constructed by
cross-plotting conventional constant stress strain/time curves on stress-strain axes, to
form a series of isochronous contours, representing the strain produced at a prescribed
stress, in a certain time.]
10) Continuously cycling fatigue life as a function of strain range at a fast strain rate
(average), and
11) Creep-fatigue cyclic life involving cycles with various strain ranges and hold times
(average).
Any loss or change in mechanical properties caused by thermal aging, decarburization,

etc., with long-term high-temperature exposure in an environment should also be
included in the database. Items 4 and 8 are needed for conducting inelastic stress-strain
analyses. The rest are required for satisfying elastic as well as inelastic analysis limits.
________________________________________________________________________
12.3 Primary Stress Limits
Elastic Analysis Rules
Time-Dependent Primary Stress Limit for Base Metal: In addition to the time-
independent S m, the code introduces a temperature- and time-dependent quantity St to
account for creep effects. For each specific time t and temperature T, S t for the base metal
is defined as the least of the following three stresses:
(1) 100% of the average stress required to obtain a total (elastic, plastic, primary creep,
and secondary creep) strain of 1%;
(2) 80% of the minimum stress to cause initiation of tertiary creep; and
(3) 67% of the minimum stress to cause creep-rupture.
A basic primary stress limit for high temperatures is S mt, which is the lesser of S m and St,
and is a function of both time and temperature. Note that the definition of St assumes that
the material has a classical creep curve (Fig. 3). However, some nickel-based alloys
exhibit a non-classical creep curve (Fig. 41) with no clear primary creep or secondary
creep regime. The above definition of St has to be revised for these materials.
Creep rupture
Total Strain
Instantaneous creep
Time (Hrs)
Fig. 41: A typical non-classical creep curve for nickel-based superalloys
Time-dependent Primary Stress Limit for Weldments: The basic primary stress limit
for weldment at high temperatures is the lesser of S mt of the base metal and 0.8SrR, where
Sr is the expected minimum stress-to-rupture strength of the base metal, and R is the
appropriate ratio between the creep rupture strength for the weld metal and the base
metal. The time- and temperature-dependent stress intensity limit St for weldment is the
lesser of St for the base metal and 0.8SrR.
________________________________________________________________________
12.4 Limits for General Primary Membrane Stress
The ASME Code requires that for normal operation and upset conditions (Service Level
A and B loadings)
Pm  Smt (125)
For emergency conditions (Service Level C loading), the allowable general primary
membrane stress intensity is
1.2Sm
Pm   (126)
 St
In addition, the time-based use-fraction sum associated with the general primary
membrane stresses for Level A, B, and C primary loadings shall be less than 1. For
faulted conditions (Service Level D loading), the limits on allowable general primary
membrane stress intensity, obtained in part from Appendix F of Section III, is
 2.4Sm
 0.7S

Pm   u
(127)
 0.67 S r
0.6RSr
In addition, the time-based use-fraction sum associated with the general primary
membrane stresses for all service loadings shall be less than 1. Eq. (125)-(126) ensure
that the primary stress, which is in static equilibrium with external loads, stays below the
yield and the ultimate strength, and keeps the maximum thickness-averaged creep strain
to below 1% during normal operation, upset, and emergency conditions. This condition
mitigates failure modes 1, 2, 7, and 8. On the other hand, Eq. (127) ensures that the
primary stress during faulted condition stays below the ultimate tensile and creep rupture
strengths (preventing rupture, i.e., failure modes 1 and 7) but may exceed the yield stress,
which in turn, may lead to significant plastic deformation.
Limits for Local Primary Membrane and Primary Bending Stress The ASME Code
requires that for normal operation and upset conditions (Service Level A and B loadings).
PL  Pb  KSm
(128)
PL  Pb Kt  St
where Kt accounts for relaxation of extreme fiber bending stress due to creep. The factor
is given by
K t  0.5  K  1 (129)
where K (  1.5) represents the ratio between the loads to cause fully plastic section and
initial
________________________________________________________________________
yielding in the extreme fiber of the section. For shells and solid sections, K = 1.5. For
emergency conditions (Service Level C loading), the allowable local stress intensity for
the primary membrane-plus-bending is
PL  Pb  1.2KSm
(130)
PL  Pb Kt  St
In addition, the time-based use-fraction sum associated with the local primary membrane
plus bending stresses for Level A, B, and C primary loadings shall be less than 1. For
faulted conditions (Service Level D loading), the allowable local primary membrane plus
bending stress intensity is
 3.6Sm
PL  Pb  
1.05Su
(131)
 0.67Sr
PL  Pb K t  
0.8RSr
In addition, the time-based use-fraction sum associated with the local primary membrane
plus bending stress intensity for all service loadings shall be less than 1. Eq. (128)-(131)
ensure that the primary membrane-plus-bending stress, which is in static equilibrium with
external loads, does not exceed the collapse load or cause excessive creep deformation
during normal operation, upset, and emergency conditions. According to the Lower
Bound Theorem of plasticity, the external loads represent a lower bound on the true
collapse load. Thus, these equations ensure that failure modes 2 and 8 cannot occur.
However, significant plastic deformation but no rupture may occur under faulted
conditions.
12.5 Creep Bending Shape Factor Kt
Assuming a simple Norton's power law creep, we can show that Eq. (129) for Kt is
conservative for solid rectangular sections as long as the creep exponent is greater than
three.
12.6 Inelastic Analysis Rules
Subsection NH does not include inelastic analysis rules for satisfying the primary stress
limits. However, the inelastic strain limits in the low temperature rule (Section III,
Subsection NB) have to be satisfied.
________________________________________________________________________
12.7 High-Temperature Limits for Cyclic Loading
When creep effects are significant [T >427°C (800°F) for austenitic stainless steels and
>371°C (700°F) for ferritic steels], inelastic analysis is generally required to
quantitatively assess strains and deformations. However, elastic and simplified inelastic
analysis methods can sometimes be justified and used to establish conservative bounds
for deformation, strain, strain ranges, and maximum stress in order to reduce the number
of locations needed for detailed inelastic analysis. Note that the multi-axial constitutive
equations needed to perform detailed inelastic analyses might not be available for some
materials. Non-mandatory rules for strain, deformation, and fatigue limits at elevated
temperature are contained in non-mandatory Appendix T of Subsection NH. These rules
can be satisfied either by elastic or inelastic analysis.
12.8 High-Temperature Ratcheting Limits
The objective of the ratcheting rules is to ensure that the maximum accumulated principal
tensile inelastic stain at any point over the expected operating lifetime of the equipment
due to Level A, B, and C loadings does not exceed the inelastic strain limits. Strain limits
need not be satisfied for Level D loading.
Inelastic Strain Limits for Base Metal: The inelastic strain limits for base metal are as
follows:
1) strains, average through thickness, 1%;

2) strains at the surface, due to an equivalent linear distribution through the thickness,
2%;
3) local strains at any point, 5%.
Inelastic Strain Limits for Welds: Because of the potential for limited ductility of weld
metal at elevated temperatures and the potential for high strain concentrations (both
metallurgical and geometric) in the heat affected zones of weldments, inelastic strains
accumulated in the weld region (defined as ±3 times the thickness to either side of the
weld centerline) shall not exceed one-half of that permitted for the parent material.
12.9 Tests to satisfy the inelastic strain limits
The inelastic strain limits are considered to have been satisfied if any of the Tests A1, A2
or A3 (in decreasing order of conservativeness) is satisfied. The tests are expressed in
terms of X and Y, which are defined in terms of the maximum local primary membrane-
________________________________________________________________________
and-bending stress intensities and maximum range of secondary stress intensity, and the
average yield stress during the cycle, as follows:
X
 PL  Pb K t max
; Y
 Qmax (132)
Sy,avg Sy,avg
For test A1
X  Y  Sa S y (133)
where Sa is the lesser of
(a) 1.25St using the highest wall-averaged temperature during the cycle and a time of 104
h, and
(b) the average of two Sy values associated with the maximum and minimum wall-
averaged temperatures during the cycle.
For Test A2,

X Y 1 (134)
for those cycles during which the average wall temperature at one of the stress extremes
defining the maximum cyclic primary-plus-secondary stress range is below the
temperature where creep is negligible.
Test A3 can be applied if the following conditions are first met:

(a) the low-temperature 3Sm rule is satisfied,
(b) the low-temperature Bree diagram rule is satisfied,
(c) Wt 1.5Sy  Tm   0.1
where Wt is the creep rupture usage fraction evaluated using a stress 1.5 times the
average yield strength at maximum wall-averaged temperature Tm during each interval.
(d)  1.25Sy  Tm,i   0.2%
i
i  
where  i is the creep strain at a stress of 1.25 times the average yield strength at
maximum wall-averaged temperature Tm,i during interval i. If conditions (a) through (d)
are met, then
  PL  Pb max   Qmax  3Sm (135)
where 3Sm is the lesser of the following

(a) 3Sm
(b) 1.5Sm + 1.5 SrH if only one extreme of the stress cycle occurs at a temperature above
which creep is not negligible,
(c) SrH + SrL if both extremes of the stress cycle occur at temperatures, above which
creep is not negligible,
________________________________________________________________________
The quantities SrH and SrL are the relaxation strengths associated with the "hot" and
"cold" extremes of the stress cycle.
12.10 Test for applying simplified inelastic strain analysis
The simplified inelastic strain analysis has three tests.
Test No. B1
The inelastic strain limits are considered to be satisfied if the following conditions are
met first:
(a) The structure must be either axi-symmetric with axi-symmetric loading away from
local structural discontinuity or a general structure in which the peak through wall
thermal stress is negligible, i.e., the thermal through-wall stress distribution is
approximately linear.
(b) The individual cycles defined in the design specification cannot be split into sub-
cycles.
(c) Secondary stresses with elastic follow-up (i.e., pressure-induced membrane and
bending stresses and thermal-induced membrane stresses) should be classified as primary
stresses.
(d) At least one extreme of the stress cycle occurs at a temperature below which creep is
negligible.
(e) Load combinations in the R1 and R2 ratcheting regimes are not permitted.
If conditions (a) through (e) are satisfied, then

- Divide the service life into N time-temperature blocks.
- Determine the effective creep stress  c ,k for the kth (k = 1 to N) time-temperature block
using the formula
 c  ZSyL (136)
where SyL is the Sy value at the "low" temperature extreme of the cycle, and Z is a creep
stress parameter for any combination of loading given in Fig. 42. Z may be calculated as
follows.
In regimes S2 and P,
Z  X *Y (137)
In regime S1,
Z  Y  1  2 1  X  Y (138)
In regime E,
ZX (139)
________________________________________________________________________
where the definitions of X and Y are the same as given earlier except that the Sy value is
replaced by S yL.
Test No. B-1 is applicable only if  c values calculated above for all the blocks are less
than their corresponding hot yield stress S yH which is the Sy value at the "high"
temperature extreme of the cycle. If so,
- Multiply each value of  c ,k by 1.25, and evaluate the creep strain increment associated
with the stress 1.25  c ,k held constant throughout the particular time-temperature block,
using the isochronous stress-strain curves.
- Limit the maximum value of the accumulated creep strain to 1% for the base metal.
- Limit the maximum value of the accumulated creep strain to 0.5% for the weld metal.
The code also gives a more conservative ratcheting rule for any general structure which is
similar to Test B1, with the exception that the effective creep stress parameter Z is
obtained from a figure in the code. This is Test B2.
Test B3 is the least conservative of the three tests and is the only test that permits load
combinations, which lie in the ratcheting regimes R1 and R2 in Fig. 42. However, it is
restricted to axi-symmetric structures with axi-symmetric loading away from local
structural discontinuity. The code gives explicit equations for calculating bounds to
ratcheting plastic strains and enhanced creep strains due to creep relaxation within the
cycles in the S1, S2, P, R1, and R2 regimes in Fig. 42. These strains have to be added to
the accumulated inelastic strain calculated by Test B1 using isochronous stress-strain
curves.
R2
Secondary stress parameter, Y
R1
2.0
S2
1.0 Z=0.5
S1 Z=1
0 0.5 1.0
Primary stress parameter, X
Fig. 42: Effective creep stress parameter Z for simplified inelastic analysis rules B1
and B3.
________________________________________________________________________
12.11 High-Temperature Creep-Fatigue Rule
Damage Equation: The combination of Level A, B, and C loadings shall be evaluated

for accumulated creep and fatigue damage, including hold time and strain rate effects.
For a design to be acceptable, the creep and fatigue damage shall satisfy the following
relation:
 n  pq
 t 
j 1 
 N
     D (140)
d j k 1  Td  j
where D = the total creep-fatigue damage (Fig. 43); (Nd)j is the number of design
allowable fatigue cycles for cycle type j at a given total equivalent strain range,
temperature, and strain rate; (Td)k is the allowable duration (obtained from the minimum
time-to-rupture plot) for a given stress and maximum temperature at the point of interest
and occurring during the time interval k; (n) j is the number of repeated cycles of type j;
and (Dt)k = duration of time interval k.
1.0
SS 304 and SS316

Creep damage
2.25Cr-1Mo Steel and

0.3 Alloy 800H
0.1
0
0.1 0.3 1.0
Fatigue damage
Fig. 43: Damage rule to take into account of both creep and fatigue damage
The equivalent strain range is defined with respect to changes in the strain components
from the starting point to each point j in the cycle,
________________________________________________________________________
0.5
2  
* 
 x, j   y , j     y , j   z , j     z , j   x , j    xy2 , j   yz2 , j   zx2 , j 
2 2 2 3
 eq,j 
2 1    2 
(141)
where  * is 0.3 and 0.5 for elastic and inelastic analysis rules respectively and  max is the
maximum of  eq,j .
12.12 Satisfaction of Creep-Fatigue Limits Using Elastic Analysis
The elastic analysis rule can be used only if

(1) elastic ratcheting rule A1, A2 or A3 is satisfied or simplified inelastic analysis
ratcheting rule B1 is satisfied with Z  1 ,
(2) the 3Sm rule is satisfied with 3Sm being defined as the lesser of 3Sm and 3Sm as
defined in Eq. (135), and
(3) thermal induced membrane stress is classified as primary stress.
12.13 Fatigue Damage Evaluation
If the above conditions are satisfied, then the elastic analysis rule can be applied by first
modifying the equivalent strain range for each cycle type from  max to  mod to account
for stress concentration factor K using Neuber‘s rule. Three options with different
degrees of conservatism are provided in the code. The total strain range (  t ) that is
entered in the fatigue design curve to obtain N d [Eq. (140)] is finally calculated as
follows:
t  Kv  mod  K  c (142)
where
K = local geometrical stress concentration factor
Kn = the multiaxial plasticity and Poisson‘s ratio adjustment factor
 c = creep strain increment during each cycle
Formulas for calculating Kn and  c are given in the code.
12.14 Creep Damage Evaluation
Appendix T gives two options for evaluating the creep damage during hold periods by
providing upper-bound estimates of creep strain accumulation and variation of stress due
to stress relaxation, using the isochronous stress-strain curves. As an added conservatism,
________________________________________________________________________
the stress during an incremental time during the hold period is divided by factor K'
(=0.67) before it is entered in the minimum time-to-rupture plot to obtain Td in Eq. (140).
12.15 Satisfaction of Creep-Fatigue Limits Using Inelastic Analysis
With the inelastic analysis, the calculated equivalent strain range already incorporates
stress concentration effects, and no further adjustment is necessary. It can be entered in
the fatigue design curve to obtain N d. The creep damage in Eq. (140) may be replaced by
an integral
t
Dc   t T
t=0
d (143)
where T d is obtained from the minimum time-to-rupture curve. The effective stress  e for
the multi-axial stress state is defined as follows:
  J1 
 e   exp C   1 (144)
  Ss  
  1   2    2   3    3  1  
0.5
J1  1   2   3
2 2 2
where 2, and
0.5
Ss  12   22   32  ,  1 ,  2 , and  3 are the principal stresses respectively. As in the
elastic analysis case, the effective stress  e is divided by K' (=0.67) before the minimum
time-to-rupture curve is entered to obtain T d. The constant C is equal to 0.24 for
austenitic stainless steels and 0 for 2-1/4Cr-1Mo and Alloy 800H.
12.16 Creep Fatigue of Weldments
Because of the potential for limited ductility of weld metal at elevated temperatures and
the potential for high strain concentrations (both metallurgical and geometric) in the heat
affected zones of weldments, creep-fatigue evaluation in the weld region (defined as ±3
times the thickness to either side of the weld centerline) should be conducted with
reduced values of the allowable number of design cycles (N d) and allowable time
duration (Td) in Eq. (140). The Nd value should be one-half that permitted for the parent
material, and the Td value should be obtained from that of the parent material by
multiplying it with the weld strength reduction factor (R). The factor K' should also be
used in the determination of Td, as in the case of the base metal.
12.17 C reep Crack Growth and Non-ductile Fracture
The code stipulates that non-ductile fracture is not a problem for the approved materials
at high temperatures. However, stress relaxation occurring at high temperatures may lead
________________________________________________________________________
to high residual stresses at lower temperature where non-ductile fracture is possible for
ferritic alloys that show ductile-to-brittle transition behavior. The procedure discussed in
Appendix G of the ASME Code may be used to demonstrate that non-ductile fracture will
not occur for postulated defects. Such demonstrations are not needed for the austenitic
steels or Alloy 800H. Subsection NH does not require consideration of creep crack
growth.
12.18 Time-Independent Buckling
Buckling limits for specific geometries under different loadings are given in Section III.
These limits include the effects of geometrical imperfections permitted by fabrication
tolerances on vessel shells. Subsection NH, Appendix T, lists the maximum permitted
values of time-independent buckling factors as functions of Service Load Level and for
load- and strain-controlled buckling. The permissible load factors are significantly larger
than the permissible strain factors. However, the code does not provide any guidance for
the buckling analysis except for the buckling limits for specific cases listed in Section III.
It requires that the calculated load factors for load-controlled buckling and the calculated
strain factors for strain-controlled buckling be less than those tabulated in Appendix T of
Subsection NH.
12.19 Time-Dependent Buckling
Subsection NH, Appendix T, lists maximum permitted values of time-dependent, load-

controlled creep buckling factors as functions of Service Load Level. These factors are a
factor of two less than those used in low-temperature, load-controlled buckling. In
contrast to low temperature buckling, the factor for purely strain-controlled creep
buckling is not required because strain-controlled loads are reduced concurrently with
resistance of structure to buckling when creep is significant. As in the low-temperature
case, the code does not provide any guidance for the creep buckling analysis. It requires
that the calculated load factors for load-controlled creep buckling be less than those
tabulated in Appendix T of Subsection NH.
12.20 Remarks regarding Subsection NH
A problem with using Subsection NH in the design of high temperature reactor

components is that its rules are written for materials that follow a classical creep curve,
i.e., primary creep, secondary creep, and tertiary creep. However, many of the materials
(e.g., Alloy 617) do not show any evidence of primary or secondary creep. New rules
(such as those in the Draft Code Case for Alloy 617) have to be developed for such
materials. Another significant shortcoming of Subsection NH as a design code for high
________________________________________________________________________
temperature reactors is that it does not require the supporting inelastic stress analysis to
be conducted with rate-dependent, high temperature unified constitutive equations (no
distinction between creep strain and plastic strain), which are necessary when
components operate at very high temperatures [>649°C (1200°F)]. At such high
temperatures, the tensile stress-strain curve of a material depends on the strain rate, and
the classical distinction between plasticity and creep becomes untenable. Advanced
unified constitutive equations are required while conducting inelastic analysis above
649°C (1200°F) with the draft code case for Alloy 617.
Creep-fatigue damage is evaluated in Subsection NH using the time-fraction and cycle-

fraction bilinear damage rule. This rule was originally developed by NASA (as linear
damage rule) and was adopted by the ASME Code because of its simplicity. During the
1970s and 1980s, USDOE funded several projects to develop databases on high-
temperature materials properties for the austenitic stainless steels, ferritic steel (2.25Cr-
1Mo), Alloy 800H, and Alloy 718 in support of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor
Program. The databases developed under the USDOE programs form a significant
portion of the supporting data for the design curves (including creep and creep-fatigue)
that are currently in Subsection NH.
As part of the USDOE program, ANL developed the damage rate equation for predicting
creep-fatigue life. During this time, a detailed review of the various life predictive
methods was conducted by ANL. The review showed that the Damage Rate Equation can
account for strain rate effects, loading wave-shape effects, and various hold time effects
more accurately than the linear damage rule. Since then, a review conducted by the
Japanese researchers has also concluded that several other life-predictive methods,
including ANL's damage rate equation, can predict the creep-fatigue life of Haste-alloy
XR at high temperatures more accurately than the linear damage rule. The AMSE Code
has continued to use the linear damage rule by changing the linear to a bilinear damage
rule and adjusting the rule so that all available data are predicted conservatively.
However, this leaves open the question whether the rule continues to be conservative
when extrapolated significantly beyond the database. Such an extrapolation will be
necessary if plants are to be designed for a 40-year life.
Subsection NH does not provide specific guidelines for environmental effects, but states
that the combined effects of exposure to elevated temperature, contacting fluid, and
nuclear radiation on material properties shall also be considered. Currently, there is no
generally accepted method for taking environmental effects into account, because
different materials behave differently in the same environment. For example, in austenitic
stainless steels, tensile holds are more damaging than compressive holds under creep-
fatigue loading in air or in vacuum, because volumetric creep damage dominates failure
________________________________________________________________________
in these materials. On the other hand, in ferritic steels (e.g., 2-1/4Cr-1Mo steel and 9Cr-
1Mo steel), the converse is true, because oxidation plays a critical role in surface cracking
of these alloys. Similarly under creep loading, Alloy 617 shows early surface cracking in
air, but surface cracking is subdued in the He environment. The linear damage rule
cannot predict such divergent behavior. Clearly, more mechanistically based predictive
methods are needed to be able to handle the various material-specific damage
mechanisms in different environments.
References
1. Penny R.K. (ed.). Proceedings Conference on Ageing of Materials and Lifetime

Assessment, CAPE '91, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 55, 1-370, 1991.
2. Taira, S., Tanaka, K. and Ohji, K. A mechanism of deformation of metals high
temperatures with special reference to the tension test and creep test, Bull. JSME, 3
(10), 1960.
3. Saxena A, Sherlock TP, Viswanathan R. Evaluation of remaining life of high
temperature headers: a case history. In: Proceedings of EPRI workshop on life
extension and assessment of fossil plant, 1988.
4. Liaw PK, Saxena A, Schaeffer J. Estimating remaining life of elevated-temperature
steam pipes- Part II. Fracture mechanics analyses. Engng. Fract. Mech. 1989; 32:
709-722.
5. Thoraval G. Creep of high temperature steam piping: EDF experience with fossil
fired power plants from 1955 to 1987. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1989; 116: 389- 398.
6. Manson, S.S., Halford, G.R. and Hirshberg, M.H. Creep-Fatigue Analysis by Strain
Range Partitioning, in Proceedings Symposium on Design for Elevated
Temperature Environment, ASME, New York, 1971.
7. Miksch M, Schücktanz G. Evaluation of fatigue of reactor components by on-line
monitoring of transients. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1990; 119: 239- 247.
8. Aufort P, Bimont G, Chau TH, Fournier I, Morilhat P, Souchois T, Cordier G. On
line fatiguemeter: a large experiment in French nuclear plants. Nucl. Engng. Des.
1991; 129: 177-184.
9. Sakurai T, Sugai S, Aoki M. Life assessment of high-temperature components of
thermal power plants in Japan. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1993; 139: 311- 317.
10. Liaw PK, Saxena A, Perrin J. Life extension technology for steam pipe systems-
Part I. Development of material properties; Part II. Development of life prediction
methodology. Engng. Fract. Mech. 1993; 45: 759- 798.
11. Gerber D. EPRI‘s fatigue monitoring system, EPRI fatigue seminar Operating
Power Plant Fatigue Damage Assessment, Burlington VT, USA, Aug. 1995.
________________________________________________________________________
12. Bartonicek J, Zaiss W, Hienstorfer W, Kocklemann H., Schöckle F. Monitoring
system and determination of actual fatigue usage. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1995; 153:
127-133.
13. Jovanovic A, Verelst L. (Eds.). Implementation of power plant component life
assessment technology using a knowledge-based system, In: Proceedings of the SP
249 Project Final Workshop, Feb. 1997.
14. ASME Boiler and pressure code, Case N-47 (29) Class 1 components in elevated
temperature service, Section 3, Division 1, New York: ASME, 1991.
15. RCC-MR. Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR
Nuclear Islands, AFCEN, Paris, 2001.
16. R6, Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects, British Energy,
Report R6-Rev.4, 2001.
17. Goodall IW (Ed.). Assessment procedure for the high temperature response of
structures, R5. Nuclear electric procedure; 1998. Issue2.
18. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, New York, 1995.
19. Nuclear Electric R5: Assessment procedure for high temperature response of
structures, Nuclear Electric plc Report R5 Issue 1: Vol. 4, assessment procedure for
defects under steady loading; Vol. 5, creep-fatigue crack growth, Berkeley Nuclear
Laboratories, UK, 1990.
20. Reidel R, Rice JR. Tensile Cracks In Creeping in Solids, in Proceedings 12th
ASTM Fracture Mechanics Conference, ASTM STP 700, ASTM, Philadelphia,
1980.
21. Kumar V, German D, Shih CF. An engineering approach for elastic-plastic fracture
analysis, EPRI final report NP 1931; 1981.
22. Porowski, J.S., Kasrai, B. and Cervanka, L. (1992) Practical Design Methods for
Redundant Structures at Elevated Temperatures Service, ASM E PV P, 232, 1992.
23. Milne, I., Ainsworth, R.A., Dowling, A.R. and Stewart, A.T. Assessment of the
Integrity of Structures Containing Defects, CEGB Report R/H/R6/Rev. 3, CEG B,
Berkeley, UK, 1986.
Chapter-8
Plastic collapse and plastic instability of

irradiated component as per SDC-IC and
RCC-MR Code

Chapter 8: Plastic collapse and plastic instability of irradiated component as per SDC-IC and RCC-MR Code
______________________________________________________________________________
Summary
The following codes for high temperature design of the components are discussed in this chapter.
-Structural design criteria for in-vessel components (SDC-IV)

-RCC-MR, Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR Nuclear Islands
(French Code),
-Procedure R5: Assessment procedures for the High Temperature Response of Structures (British
Procedure).
The Structural Design Criteria for ITER In-vessel Components (SDC-IC) contains rules for the
structural design of the in-vessel components: first wall, shield / blanket, divertor and the
diagnostic components located inside of vacuum vessel. The scope of these criteria is limited to
design. These criteria were developed because existing codes do not address the effects of
irradiation on the in-vessel components, which include embrittlement of the material (low
ductility and toughness), and may include swelling and creep. Also, the component
classifications used with existing codes for the construction of Nuclear Power Plants do not
necessarily apply to the in-vessel components. Substantial modifications are introduced in the
code to account for irradiation effects.
The design procedures discussed in all these codes are nearly similar with minor differences.
Design rules are given in ASME Section III, Subsection NH to protect against different failure
modes using elastic and, in some cases, either elastic or elastic-plastic analysis techniques. The
first step in design for elevated temperature is to design the component for low temperature
operation. The first few steps in the design process are, therefore, identical with those used in
low-temperature applications. Operation at elevated temperature introduces time-dependent
failure modes. Thus, in addition to the six time-independent failure modes, the following six
time-dependent failure modes are considered in the high-temperature design, i.e.,
-Creep rupture under sustained primary loading,

- Excessive creep deformation under sustained primary loading,
- Cyclic creep ratcheting due to steady primary and cyclic secondary loading,
- Creep-fatigue due to cyclic primary, secondary, and peak stresses,
- Creep crack growth and non-ductile fracture, and
- Creep buckling.
In this chapter, the basics of creep deformation and the factors influencing creep strain
accumulation is discussed. The initiation and propagation crack during creep and the fracture
mechanics method to deal with the problem has been described. In the end, the design rules using
______________________________________________________________________________
ASME Section III, Subsection NH and RCC-MR codes has been discussed. The British design
and life assessment procedure R5 also considers the creep life assessment of components in the
presence of defects and this has been reviewed in this chapter. The chapter has been concluded
with several remarks on the salient features of the different codes for design and life assessment
of components operating in the elevated temperature regime.
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Structural design criteria for in-vessel components (SDC-IC)
The Structural Design Criteria for ITER In-vessel Components (SDC-IC) contains rules for the
structural design of the in-vessel components: first wall, shield / blanket, divertor and the
diagnostic components located inside of vacuum vessel. The scope of these criteria is limited to
design. These criteria were developed because existing codes do not address the effects of
irradiation on the in-vessel components, which include embrittlement of the material (low
ductility and toughness), and may include swelling and creep. Also, the component
classifications used with existing codes for the construction of Nuclear Power Plants do not
necessarily apply to the in-vessel components. Substantial modifications are introduced in the
code to account for irradiation effects. The development of this code was undertaken as a
collaborative work among the home teams of the European Union, Japan, the Russian
Federation, and the United States.
1.1 Features unique to in-vessel components
The structure and the environment of the in-vessel components of ITER have a number of unique
features that require special consideration. In particular, the following are important.
a. Plasma disruptions (centered disruption, vertical disruption, or vertical displacement events)

cause transient dynamic stresses (due to electromagnetic loads) and transient thermal stresses
with extremely high heat fluxes (due to the thermal energy deposited on the first wall). However,
these stresses are characterized by two important features: first, they are of short duration, and
second, the high thermal stresses in a bare metal are restricted to a thin skin. The cyclic and
frequent nature of disruption-induced stresses is expected to make fatigue the dominant failure
mechanism for in-vessel components.
b. The first wall will experience moderate doses of high energy (14 MeV) neutrons. This
irradiation has a number of effects on material properties, including:
• embrittlement of the material (reduced ductility and fracture toughness),
• possible swelling (depending on the temperature),
• irradiation-induced creep,
• time dependent material properties.
Swelling, creep, and time dependent properties cause time-dependent stresses, but these in
themselves do not require fundamental changes in the design rules when compared with existing
codes. With reduced ductility, however, secondary and peak stresses become more important.
Existing codes rely on sufficient ductility to simplify the analysis, ignoring secondary and peak
stresses apart from their effect on strain ratcheting and fatigue. The SDC-IC includes direct
______________________________________________________________________________
limits on secondary and peak stresses that account for both the stress and strain limits of the
material.
c. The geometry is non-axisymmetric.

• The general configuration of the vacuum vessel and blanket is non-axisymmetric because
of the use of double-walled and rib-reinforced structures and numerous large penetrations
(ports).
• The local configuration of the components, e.g., the shape of the modules and the
arrangement of the cooling channels, is also non-axisymmetric.
• Distribution of thermal and electromagnetic loads will also be non-axisymmetric.
Simplified rules based on axisymmetric pipes and pressure vessels are not necessarily
adequate.
d. The in-vessel components are experimental components for which no safety credit is taken.
The need for performing accurate design analyses has to do with investment protection rather
than public safety.
SDC-IC provides rules for the design evaluation and stress analyses of in-vessel mechanical
components of ITER. These components include the first wall, the shield/blanket, and the
divertor. The purpose of these rules is to ensure that required safety margins are maintained
relative to the types of mechanical damage which might occur as a result of imposed loadings.
The various types of damage are listed and discussed in IC 2100. The design rules to prevent the
damage are listed and discussed in IC 3000 and IC 4000. These rules do not cover measures
needed to prevent other types of damage resulting, for example, from erosion or corrosion. These
rules do not cover the steps to be taken to ensure correct operation of components comprising
mechanisms or moving parts (such as pumps or valves).
1.2 Damages and failure modes
M-type damage
M-type damage denotes damage in a structure which can result from the application of a steadily
and regularly increasing loading, a constant loading, or the loading corresponding to the first
quarter cycle of a cyclic load. M refers to Monotonic. In unirradiated structural alloys, M-type
damages generally occur in a ductile mode, i.e., accompanied by significant plastic deformation.
In irradiated materials, the potential for fracture modes with little or no plastic deformation
increases.
Ductile damage modes

a) Immediate plastic collapse
______________________________________________________________________________
If a structure made of an elastic and ductile material is subjected to a proportional and steadily
increasing loading, initially the structure behaves elastically and the deformation is reversible. At
higher loading, irreversible plastic deformations occur such that, if the loading were removed,
the structure would not return to its original dimensions or shape. If the loading were continually
increased, the structure would ultimately reach plastic collapse. This is an overall structural
behavior, as opposed to a local material instability.
b) Immediate plastic instability
Immediate plastic instability is a phenomenon of material instability which, in the case of a

tensile test, is called ―necking.‖ If a structure is loaded well into the plastic regime, the response
in a local region of the structure depends on its change in geometry and the strain hardening
behavior of the material. These two effects are often counteracting, i.e., any change in geometry
generally tends to reduce the load carrying capability of the structure (by reduction in area for
example), whereas an increase in the yield strength of the material tends to increase it. As long as
the geometrical effect is dominated by the strain hardening effect, the structure deforms in a
stable manner.
When the geometrical effect becomes dominant, deformation becomes unstable and fracture can
ensue if the loading is maintained. Necking can also be considered as a plastic strain localization
phenomenon. Plastic instability considered here is a phenomenon at the continuum level on a
scale that is large compared to grain size and microstructure but small compared to the
component or structure being analyzed. Plastic instability must not be confused with ductile
tearing which is controlled by phenomena at the microstructural level. The latter is a form of fast
fracture and must be examined separately.
1.3 Non-ductile damage modes
The neutron irradiation environment in ITER will create a number of potential damage or failure
modes that are not considered in the fission reactor codes. These damage or failure modes will
result primarily from the loss of ductility and strain hardening capability of the material that
occurs when it is subjected to neutron irradiation. Further, the use of multilayer heterogeneous
structures will introduce a number of potential failure modes not considered in the fission reactor
codes.
1.4 Immediate plastic flow localization
In a material with very low strain hardening capability, plastic strain may not be readily
homogenized, and the structure may fail by the localization of plastic flow. Plastic flow
localization appears as a large strain within a narrow band, inclined at an angle to the load. It is a
type of plastic instability (under load-control), precipitated by small surface notches or
______________________________________________________________________________
irregularities. Like necking, plastic flow localization is essentially a nonlinear phenomenon and
must be avoided even under strain-controlled loading. This type of damage may lead to early
cracking even when the material has significant local ductility as measured by reduction in area.
Both necking and plastic flow localization are affected by the strain hardening capability of a
material, which is closely tied to its uniform elongation. Both appear in an irradiated material
with low uniform elongation.
1.5 Immediate local fracture due to exhaustion of ductility
Reduced ductility is associated with a low elongation (strain) at rupture. This can precipitate
cracking in regions of high elastic follow up or stress concentration, such as the root of a notch,
where the strains may be locally high. This type of damage must be distinguished from the
damage of "fast fracture". Exhaustion of ductility is a limit of a continuum analysis of a
homogeneous material. Fast fracture is associated with propagation of cracks.
1.6 Fast Fracture
The term "fast fracture" is used to denote any fracture which initiates from an existing defect or
defects under monotonic loading and is not preceded by an appreciable plastic deformation of the
material. Fast fracture is generally caused by unstable propagation of a crack. Two types of fast
fracture are generally considered. One occurs by ductile tearing and the other by brittle or semi-
brittle tearing.
• Ductile tearing occurs when a small volume (process-zone) of highly stressed material at the
tip of the defect fractures through plastic instability, while the bulk of the structure behaves
elastically and is otherwise able to withstand the applied loadings.
• Brittle fracture is the result of the material cracking without detectable local plastic
deformation. In reality, a certain degree of microscopic plastic deformation always precedes this
type of tearing but it is usually restricted to a microscopic volume of material.
The flaws that initiate a fast fracture may or may not be present at a given position in an actual
structure. The existence and distribution of such flaws are statistical phenomena. The probability
of finding a flaw of critical size in the region of highest stress may be extremely low. Therefore,
fast fracture is not ―damage‖ that is predictable in a deterministic stress analysis. The discipline
of fracture mechanics is used herein as protection only against low probability hypothetical
flaws. The assessment of flaw tolerance gives additional assurance beyond that provided by a
conventional stress analysis.
______________________________________________________________________________
1.7 Thermal creep
Although inducing no immediate damage when applied, a loading can, because of creep, induce
plastic material instability if maintained over a sufficiently long period of time. This type of
damage is called time-dependent plastic instability. It is analogous to the immediate plastic
instability (necking) except that it is time dependent. Many structural materials, at relatively high
(0.5 Tm) homologous temperatures experience internal damage due to thermal creep, with or
without environmental interactions and a variety of mechanisms, such as grain boundary
cavitation, grain boundary oxidation, etc. Generally, the manifestation of such damage at the
macroscopic level is a reduction of ductility as measured in creep rupture tests. Reduction in
ductility caused by creep (under constant load or stress) can lead to time- or rate-dependent
fracture. Because of potentially significant reduction in the elongation at rupture, fracture may
occur even under constant strain (stress relaxation) loading before stresses can be relaxed by
creep.
1.8 Excessive deformations affecting functional adequacy
If a structure undergoes large deformation due to elastic, plastic, thermal creep, or irradiation
induced creep strain during operation, the functional adequacy of the component may be
compromised. The maximum permissible deformation for each component should be specified in
the component data file.
1.9 Irradiation effects
Neutron flux can modify a material's crystal structure by various mechanisms, such as
transmutations, ion implants, atomic displacements, and lattice defects. It enhances the
precipitation of impurities and phase modifications, often inducing detrimental effects on
material properties. The detailed mechanisms are very complex, but, from a macroscopic
viewpoint, three phenomena are important: irradiation-induced creep, swelling, and changes in
material properties.
Irradiation- induced creep
Irradiation-induced creep, caused by atomic displacements, is similar to thermal creep in that it

leads to permanent deformation of the material. However, irradiation-induced creep is widely
held to be non-damaging and is not limited by ductility. Nevertheless, the strains caused by
irradiation-induced creep should be taken into account. Irradiation creep strains affect the
distribution of stresses, which in turn can influence other damage mechanisms such as fatigue
and excessive deformation of the structure. Irradiation-induced creep may have a beneficial
______________________________________________________________________________
effect of relaxing residual or strain-controlled stresses. On the other hand, this relaxation may
result in a stress reversal when thermal loadings are removed.
Irradiation- induced swelling
Irradiation can induce gross structural distortions by swelling in isotropic materials or by growth
in anisotropic materials. This phenomenon is irreversible and may lead to high stresses when the
swelling is constrained or spatially varying. Such stresses are strain controlled, and the beneficial
relaxation effects of irradiation-induced creep should be considered in the calculation of the
constrained swelling stresses.
Irradiation- induced changes in material properties
Large changes in materials properties due to irradiation can be induced by atomic displacements,
nuclear transmutation, and gas formation (He). Irradiation effects in copper alloys and austenitic
stainless steels include significant irradiation-induced hardening, loss of ductility, loss of strain-
hardening capability, and reduction in fracture toughness at a relatively low neutron damages
(displacement dose ~ 0.3 to 10 dpa).
______________________________________________________________________________
1.10 Elastic follow-up
Fig.1 : Primary, secondary stress and actual stress due to elastic follow-up
It is possible for a small part of a structure to undergo inelastic deformation whereas the rest of
the structure remains elastic. The bulk of the structure then acts as a spring with respect to the
small inelastic part of the structure. The strain energy in the elastic structure can impose large
strains on the small inelastic part, in the same manner as elastic spring-back can cause a fracture
surface to separate. The "inelastic" zones can become the seats of strain concentrations likely to
damage them. A classical example of elastic follow-up is that created by a pipe acting on an
expansion loop when the loop is considerably more heavily stressed than the rest of the pipe.
Existing codes simplify the analysis of secondary stresses and peak stresses by assuming that the
material is sufficiently ductile to accommodate constrained inelastic deformations (caused by
secondary and peak stresses) without immediate damage. In a material with reduced ductility,
such as irradiated stainless steels, elastic follow up can cause local plastic strains to exceed the
ductility limit. To account for reduced ductility, the SDC-IC explicitly accounts for elastic
follow-up in the elastic analysis rules for secondary and peak stresses. This is accomplished with
______________________________________________________________________________
the aid of a parameter ―r‖. The amount of elastic follow-up depends on the geometry and loading
of the structure. Its effect can be quantified using an elastic follow-up factor ―r‖, which is defined
as the maximum in the structure of the following ratio R.
The value of r depends on the geometry of the structure, the material stress-strain law, and the
load level. Conservative values of r can be determined in advance and then used to express the
allowable stress as a function of both a stress limit and a strain limit. Note that the above
definition of r is consistent with that used in Japanese codes but is different from the definition
used in papers by Roche (he uses r* = r - 1). The above definition for elastic follow-up factor r,
which has been adopted for SDC-IC, gives a simpler form of the rules.
1.11 Neuber's rule
Neuber analyzed mode III (anti-plane) shear deformation of a sharp notch with localized
plasticity and concluded that the product of the shear stress and the corresponding strain is
independent of the material's behavior. The assumption that the plasticity is localized, i.e., the
plastic deformation is embedded well inside an elastically deforming zone, means that the
product of stress and strain can be determined from the knowledge of the surrounding stress field
and the stress concentration factor for an elastic material. Under the same conditions, Neuber's
rule can be extended to cyclic loading by replacing shear stress and shear strain by their
respective ranges. Neuber's rule can be generalized to other modes of loading via the concept of
the J integral proposed by Rice. Detailed analysis of stress-strain field at the crack tip have
shown that the product of the stress and strain is proportional to J. Therefore, a generalized
Neuber's rule can be justified and can be expressed as follows.
The conservativeness of this rule has been verified for geometries containing notches with finite
stress concentrations rather than cracks.
______________________________________________________________________________
Neuber's rule is applicable if the remote stress field away from the notch is elastic. If the remote
stress-strain field itself undergoes plastic deformation, then a further correction is necessary,
because the remote strain is greater than the elastically calculated strain. This may be illustrated
through a simple example. Consider a cylindrical bar of length L [Fig. 1], cross-sectional area A,
which is subjected to an axial load such that the extension would be u el if it behaved elastically.
As far as the material's properties are concerned, it is only necessary to know the Young's
modulus E and the stress-strain curve giving  as a function of  .
There are a number of ways of applying the specified load, the two simplest being a
displacement u =  el .L and a force F = EA  el imposed at the end As long as the behavior is
linear elastic, a strain  el is effectively obtained for both loads. When the behavior ceases to be
linear elastic, the two loadings no longer cause the same strain. For the imposed displacement
loading u, the real strain remains the same as the elastically calculated strain  el , which means
that no correction is necessary and the elastically calculated stress = E u/L is a pure secondary
stress. For the imposed force load, the real strain corresponds to the real stress = F/A on the
stress-strain curve. This stress is a pure primary stress that can be seen to cause real strain which
is much higher than the elastically calculated  el .
These two loads represent special cases. A more general method is to apply an imposed
displacement u to one end of a spring of stiffness K the other end of which is attached to the bar
(this spring represents for example the elasticity of the loading device). This case is more general
since if K is infinite (very stiff spring), it first imparts the displacement load and if K is very low
(extremely flexible spring), it then applies the imposed force load. The displacement u required
to produce a strain  el if the bar were to remain elastic is the sum of the extension of the bar L el
and the extension of the spring EA  el /K.
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 2: Definition of elastic follow-up factor r'
______________________________________________________________________________
The above definition of the elastic follow-up factor is often used in the Japanese literature, where
the terminology is usually q rather than r. The quantity (r-1), with r defined as above, has been
used by Roche. In that case the definition of the elastic follow-up factor becomes
The elevated temperature structural design guide for the demonstration fast breeder reactor of
Japan recommends a conservative default value of r=3 for use in creep-fatigue design. Recently
conducted detailed monotonic and cyclic finite-element inelastic analyses of an support shroud, a
reactor vessel gas-dam wall, and a tube sheet model to investigate the effects of primary stress
and stress-strain law on the elastic follow-up factor r. The analyses confirmed that, as long as the
stresses were within the design allowable limits, the value of r was always significantly less than
3, generally varying between 1.48 and 2.67. It is possible to show that in actual cases, 4 is a
conservative value of r. For evaluating the elastic follow-up effect on primary stress, note that
Neuber's rule usually (not always three-point bend loading being an exception) gives a
conservative estimate of the real strain. Therefore, a conservative value of r can be obtained by
equating the peak strain by the r-factor methodology with that by Neuber's rule. If the stress-
strain curve is approximated by a power law, then the following definition of 'r' is used.
where
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 3: Comparison of Neuber's rule and elastic follow-up factor
Fig. 4: Effect of strain hardening (tangent modulus) on the r-factor variation with
maximum plastic strain for 3-point bend tests
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 5: Calculated r-factors from 3-point bend tests and notched tensile tests on irradiated
type 304 stainless steel
1.12 Types of Loads
The loads include, but are not limited to, the following.
a) Internal and external pressures (pressure, P).
b) Electromagnetic loads due to:
• disruptions,
• Vertical Displacement Events,
• Magnet faults.
These loads include reaction forces at the support points, including dynamic effects.
c) The weight of the component and its contents, and the static and dynamic loads due to its
contents (fluid interaction) under each condition analyzed.
d) Forces resulting from weight, thermal expansion, pressure and dynamic loads (anchor
displacements) which originate outside the zone studied and which are applied at its boundaries.
e) Loads resulting from earthquakes and consequent vibrations, if any.
f) Temperature effects, either constant or transient.
g) Irradiation-induced swelling effects.
h) Pressure of explosion, if occurs in the vacuum vessel (including dynamic effects).
______________________________________________________________________________
1.13 Categories of loading conditions
The loading conditions are linked with the events category and are named the same as events
specified for ITER. Rules for the specification of loading conditions or a set of loading
conditions into categories are defined in the code.
Table-1: Loading criteria followed in SDC-IC
1.14 Design conditions criteria
Level A criteria
The aim of level A criteria is to protect the component against the following damage:
- immediate plastic collapse,
- immediate plastic instability,
- immediate plastic flow localization,
- fast fracture,
- local fracture due to exhaustion of ductility,
- ratcheting,
- fatigue,
- thermal creep,
- buckling.
The satisfaction of level A criteria is intended to ensure the safety levels required by the code
with regard to these types of damage for the specified operation throughout the life of the
component.
______________________________________________________________________________
Level C criteria
The aim of level C criteria is to protect the component against the same damage as level A but
with lower safety margins. The safety margins are set so that local permanent deformation and
small levels of overall deformation could occur, while the component is limited with reasonable
confidence against the damage of immediate fracture. Consequently, it may be necessary to
inspect an apparatus subjected to these types of loading before reusing it. It is noted that contrary
to RCC-MR and ASME Code Section III, level C criteria in the SDCIC do offer protection
against C-type damage. Consequently, there is no limit on the number of cycles associated with
stresses corresponding to this category of loadings and which are limited only by level C criteria.
Level D criteria
The aim of level D criteria is to protect the component against the same M-type damage (i.e.,
excluding fatigue and ratcheting) as level C but with lower safety margins. The safety margins
are set so that gross overall deformations could occur, although some protection is still provided
against the damage of immediate fracture. It will not always be possible to return to service a
component which has been subjected to a loading limited only by level D criteria.
1.15 Allowable primary membrane stress intensity (Sm)
For materials other than bolts, Sm is a temperature (T) and neutron fluence (Ft) dependent
allowable stress intensity defined as the least of the following quantities for all metallic materials
except bolts.
If the material is susceptible to softening due to thermal aging, fully softened values of the
strength quantities should be used in above. Note that if a material hardens due to irradiation, the
______________________________________________________________________________
value of Sm is controlled by the unirradiated value if the time of loading is not specified. On the
other hand, if it softens due to irradiation, the value of Sm is controlled by the irradiated value.
Values of Sm for all materials are tabulated in Appendix A of the code SDC-IC. In a
heterogeneous multilayer structure, the allowable primary stress intensity for the k th layer, Sm,k,
is determined from the tensile properties at the average temperature (Tk) and fluence (Ftk) of the
kth layer.
1.16 Allowable primary membrane stress intensity for Bolts
For bolts, the design stress intensity Sm at any temperature is the least of the following, with
credit being granted for enhancement of properties by heat treatment:
(1) Two-thirds of the specified minimum yield strength at room temperature,
(2) Two-thirds of the yield strength at temperature.
The Sm values provided in Appendix A for the bolting materials are based on unirradiated
properties and assume that bolts in ITER are located in low neutron fluence regions where
irradiation effects on yield strength are small. If there is a loss of strength greater than 5% due to
the expected fluence at the end of life, the Sm values should be reduced accordingly. To keep the
definition of Sm for bolts consistent with those for other materials used in the SDC-IC, the Sm
values for bolts listed in appendix A are twice those used in the ASME Code or RCC-MR.
However, the rules are changed correspondingly to keep the allowable stress values the same.
1.17 Allowable primary plus secondary membrane stress intensity ( Se)
______________________________________________________________________________
Minimum Uniform Elongation (  u )
The uniform elongation is defined as the plastic component of the engineering strain at the time
when necking begins. By theoretical arguments, this may be taken as the time of maximum load
in a uniaxial tension test at a given temperature, strain rate, and fluence. The minimum value of
the uniform elongation is specified as a function of temperature, strain rate, and fluence in
A.MAT.3.4 of Appendix A.
1.18 Allowable total stress intensity (Sd )
______________________________________________________________________________
For level A criteria, values of Se, using a conservative value of r1 = 4, for all materials are
tabulated as a function of fluence and temperature in Appendix A of the code. Higher values may
be used if a lower value of r1 can be justified. The Se values are increased for other criteria
levels by using multiplicative factors given in Table IC 3220-1. For ductile (low fluence)
materials, the numerical values of Se are usually orders of magnitude higher than the maximum
stresses expected in ITER. Under these conditions, the Se limit need not be satisfied and the
Table A.MAT.5.3 in Appendix A indicates this by the entry "no limit". The Se values are
provided only for sufficiently embrittled materials for which the limits can become controlling.
Two sets of Sd allowables for criteria level A are tabulated as functions of fluence and
temperature for all materials in A.MAT.5.4 of Appendix A. These sets of Sd are increased for
other criteria levels by using multiplicative factors. One set, corresponding to r=r2, is applicable
when peak stress is included in the total stress and the other, corresponding to r=r3, is applicable
when peak stress is excluded from the total stress. In the tables, the value of KT is assumed equal
to 4 for calculating the Sd limit for total stress including peak. If KT is significantly greater than
4, the designer should recalculate the allowable stresses using a higher value of r.
______________________________________________________________________________
Note that the r-factor for thermal bending stresses can be close to 1, irrespective of the strain
hardening capability of the material. Therefore, if a major component of the total stress is a
secondary stress Q of the thermal bending type, the designer may be able to justify a lower value
of r and thus use higher allowable stresses than the tabulated values. For ductile (low fluence)
materials, the numerical values of Sd are usually orders of magnitude higher than the peak
stresses expected in ITER. Under these conditions, the Sd limit need not be satisfied and the
Table A.MAT.5.4 in Appendix A indicates this by the entry "no limit". The Sd values are
provided only for sufficiently embrittled materials for which the limits can become controlling.
1.19 Time-dependent allowable stress intensity ( St )
St is a time-dependent allowable stress intensity for primary stresses, which accounts for certain
creep effects at elevated temperature. St, which is applicable to constant stress and constant
temperature loading, is extended to time dependent stress or temperature by means of a usage
fraction Ut. St is a function of the time t and temperature T of the loading period. It is derived
from experimentally measured tensile creep curves and is defined as the least of the following:
(a) two thirds of the minimum stress corresponding to average creep rupture time t at
temperature T ,
(b) 80% of the minimum stress corresponding to time t and temperature T for onset of tertiary
creep,
(c) minimum stress to cause a creep strain of min[1%, creep ductility/5] in time t and
temperature T.
Values of St for all materials are plotted and tabulated in A.MAT.5.9 of Appendix A of the code.
1.20 Creep usage fraction for primary stress (Ut )
The creep usage fraction for primary stress, Ut, provides a means of generalizing the use of St
(which is applicable to a constant-stress, constant-temperature loading) to cases in which the
stress or temperature depends on time. St, in turn, provides a safety margin against the following
effects of thermal creep:
- creep rupture
- onset of tertiary creep
- creep strains exceeding a given amount
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 6: Creep-usage factor calculation in SDC-IC.
At any point in a component, the creep usage fraction Ut is computed and compared with limits
imposed by the code (Fig. 6). The creep usage fraction Ut can be estimated by the following
procedure which is applicable at a given point of the structure to any stress tensor which varies
with time, with or without temperature variation.
- The operating time concerned (t) is divided into N time intervals. the time intervals must be
chosen in such a way that the operating temperatures and stresses are approximately constant
throughout the interval. Only time intervals for which the temperature is greater than that defined
in A.MAT.4.1 (negligible creep curve) shall be used.
- For each interval j of duration tj, the highest operating temperature Tj as well as the highest
stress intensity sj reached during the interval j are calculated.
The maximum allowable time ts, j at any stress sj and temperature Tj can be obtained from the St
curves given in Section A.MAT.5.9 of Appendix A. If ts, j is greater than 3 x 105 hours, its value
shall be determined by a linear extrapolation of the curves. The maximum extrapolation time
shall be limited to three times the maximum duration time of creep tests used for obtaining the
property data.
- The creep usage fraction for time interval j is equal to the ratio of application time tj to the
maximum allowable time ts, j. The cumulated creep usage fraction Ut is the sum of the usage
fractions for all N intervals.
______________________________________________________________________________
1.21 Creep strain usage fraction (Ue)
The creep strain usage fraction, Ue, is used in a ratcheting analysis to satisfy Test No. B-1 (Bree
diagram). Ue is calculated using the following procedure.
Fig. 7: Calculation of creep strain usage fraction Ue
______________________________________________________________________________
1.22 Creep rupture usage fraction (Wt )
To estimate the creep damage in a structure as a function of time, temperature, and loading, a
creep rupture usage function is computed and compared with the limits imposed by the code. The
creep rupture usage fraction at a given point of the structure is determined by the following
procedure:
- the operating time (t) is divided into N time intervals,
- for each time interval k of duration tk, the highest operating temperature
Tk and the highest stress intensity sk reached during the interval k are calculated.
In order to make an accurate estimation of the creep rupture usage fraction, the time intervals
must be chosen in such a way that the temperatures and stresses during the intervals are
approximately constant. Only time intervals for which the temperature Tk is greater than that
______________________________________________________________________________
defined in A.MAT.4.1 (negligible creep curve) shall be used. For calculating the creep rupture
usage fraction Wt, the following steps should be followed.
When the trace tr of the stress tensor is known, a more accurate (and less conservative)
determination of creep rupture usage fraction can be made by replacing sj by either of the
following.
______________________________________________________________________________
1.23 Limit analysis
The deformation of a structure made of a rigid, perfectly plastic, material increases without
bound at a loading level called the collapse load. Limit analysis methods can be used to calculate
the collapse load or a lower bound to the collapse load. A given loading is less than or equal to
the collapse load if there is a stress distribution which satisfies the laws of equilibrium at all
points that does not violate the material yield criterion at any point.
This theorem allows a lower bound to be defined for the collapse load. In the case of elasto-
plastic analysis and experimental analysis, the collapse load, by convention, is defined as the
loading for which the overall permanent deformation of the structure equals the deformation
which would occur by purely elastic behavior.
1.24 Methods of analysis
Analyses consist of verifying compliance with applicable rules which are selected on the basis of
the Criteria Level, the method of analysis, and the type of damage. In the course of this
verification, practical methods of analysis are used to determine significant quantities and to
compare these quantities with maximum acceptable values.
Three methods of analysis are acceptable in defining the significant quantities used in the
criteria.
- elastic analysis,
- inelastic analysis,
- experimental analysis
The term elastic analysis designates analyses carried out on the assumption that the material is
linear-elastic and that there are no initial or residual stresses. The term inelastic analysis
designates all other methods (including elasto-plastic analysis, limit analysis, visco-plastic
analysis, etc.) except for experimental analysis. Some loadings such as electromagnetic loading
during plasma disruptions (categories II or III events) or/and earthquake are generally dynamic
in nature. The determination of loads for components and component supports shall account for
dynamic amplification of structural response, both in the component and in the system.
Experimental analysis consists of subjecting models representing the component or some of its
elements to loadings in order to determine the deformation and stresses or margins with regard to
the damage under study. Guidance for conducting elastic and inelastic analyses are given in
appendix B 3020.
______________________________________________________________________________
1.25 Flow of analysis
The rules to be satisfied differ according to:

- the level of criteria: A, C, or D,
- the method of analysis: elastic, inelastic, or experimental,
- the damage envisaged: M-type damage, C-type damage, buckling, or excessive deformation
affecting functional adequacy,
- the temperature experienced by the component : absence (low temperature) or presence (high
temperature) of thermal creep effects.
These rules (or their limits) also depend on three factors: temperature, time (or neutron
damages), and possibly neutron flux. First, they depend upon temperature because material
properties (allowable stresses, fatigue curves, etc.) are often temperature-dependent. Second,
they depend upon time or neutron fluence because of material phenomena including thermal
creep (time dependent, negligible at sufficiently low temperatures), irradiation induced creep or
swelling (fluence dependent) and variations of material properties with fluence. Fluence
dependent material properties are transformed to time-dependent stresses and strains in the
analysis. A dependence on the neutron flux or its spectrum may exist in the material property
correlations.
Since irradiation-induced creep at low temperatures is widely held to be non-damaging, no

specific rule is proposed to limit its value. However, if irradiation-induced creep is significant, its
effects on stress, strain, and displacement must be considered. Most analysis for ITER will be
conducted on the assumption of infinitesimal strain and displacement. The designer should use
judgement to ensure that this assumption is reasonable. A test to determine whether finite
deformation effects (due to irradiation-induced creep and swelling) should be considered in the
analysis is given in B 3021 of Appendix B. ITER operating conditions are expected to cause
negligible swelling in the structural components. A negligible swelling test is provided in B 3022
to verify that swelling effects are indeed negligible. If not, the designer should use judgement in
deciding whether swelling-induced stress should be considered in the analysis. Even a large
swelling strain does not necessrily cause any stress if it is unconstrained. On the other hand, a
relatively small constrained swelling strain or swelling strain gradient (e.g., due to temperature
gradient) may induce significant stresses in the structure and must be considered in the analysis.
The designer may include the relaxing effects of irradiation-induced creep for calculating the
swelling-induced stresses.
1.26 Rules for the prevention of M-type damage
The rules of this article are aimed at providing sufficient safety margins with regard to M-type
damage excluding buckling phenomenon and excessive deformation affecting functional
______________________________________________________________________________
adequacy. The rules to prevent buckling and excessive deformations affecting functional
adequacy are dealt with in IC 3400 and IC 3040, respectively. The stress intensity and fracture
toughness limits used in this code are as follows.
1.27 Stress limits for primary membrane and bending stress (Immediate plastic collapse
and plastic instability)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 8: Bending shape factor for standard cross-sections
A cross-section of interest to ITER First Wall / Blanket (Fig. 9) consists of two plates of
thicknesses h1 and h2 separated by coolant channels of height hc where h1, h2 and hc are of
comparable dimension. The bending shape factors for such a section (if the bending stiffness
effects of the webs separating the coolant channels can be ignored, which is a conservative
assumption) are given parametrically in Fig. 10. If the two plates are separated by a large
distance, (for example, as for the vacuum vessel or cryostat of ITER) the bending shape factor
may be 1.
______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 9: Cross-section of first wall of ITER
Fig. 10: Bending shape factor for first wall cross-section of ITER
1.28 Local primary membrane stress (Immediate plastic collapse and plastic instability)
______________________________________________________________________________
1.29 Primary plus secondary membrane stress (Immediate plastic flow localization)
1.30 Immediate local fracture due to exhaustion of ductility
To prevent local fracture due to exhaustion of ductility, the following limits must be satisfied at
all times during the life of the component subjected to all loadings for which criteria level A is
specified. Either the limits based on elastic analysis or the limits based on elastic-plastic analysis
must be satisfied.
Elastic analysis (Local fracture, exhaustion of ductility)\
To apply the limits of this section, results from a linear elastic analysis of the component are
needed. Then, the total stress, including peak stress, is limited by the following.
______________________________________________________________________________
Two sets of allowable Sd values (B 2725 of Appendix B) for the total stress are tabulated in
Appendix A, one corresponding to r=r2 applicable if peak stresses are included.
Elasto-plastic analysis (Local fracture, exhaustion of ductility)
If elasto-plastic analysis is performed, it must be demonstrated that the specified load controlled
and strain-controlled loadings do not cause local damage due to exhaustion of ductility. The
procedure for doing this is as follows.
______________________________________________________________________________
1.31 Bearing Loads
The average bearing stress for resistance to crushing under the maximum design load shall be
limited to the yield strength Sy at temperature except that, when the distance to a free edge is
greater than the distance over which the bearing load is applied, a stress of l.5 Sy at temperature
is permitted. For clad surfaces, the yield strength of the base metal may be used if, when
calculating the bearing stress, the bearing area is taken as the lesser of the actual contact area or
the area of the base metal supporting the contact surface.
When bearing loads are applied on parts having free edges, such as at a protruding edge, the
possibility of a shear failure shall be considered. In the case of load stress only, the average shear
stress shall be limited to 0.6Sm. In the case of load stress plus secondary stress, the average shear
stress shall not exceed 0.5Sy. When considering bearing stresses in pins and similar members,
the Sy -at-temperature value is applicable, except that a value of 1.5Sy may be used if no credit
is given to bearing area within one pin diameter from a plate edge.
1.32 Pure shear loading
The average primary shear stress across a section loaded under design conditions in pure shear
(for example, keys, shear rings, screw threads) shall be limited to 0.6Sm. The maximum primary
shear under design conditions, exclusive of stress concentration at the periphery of a solid
circular section in torsion, shall be limited to 0.8 Sm.
1.33 Level C and D criteria for M-Type damage
At levels C and D, the same set of rules as for level A, but with different safety factors, and load
factors (see below), are applicable for protection against the following M-type damage.
- immediate plastic collapse (not required for criteria level D)

- immediate plastic instability and strain localization
- local fracture due to exhaustion of ductility
- fast fracture
As in level A, either the limits based on elastic analysis or the limits based on elasto-plastic
analysis need to be satisfied. The applicable stress allowables, safety factors and load factors for
elastic analysis rules and elasto-plastic analysis rules are given in relevant tables. The different
______________________________________________________________________________
safety factors for elastic analysis rules for M-type damage are shown in Table-2 and elasto-
plastic analysis rules for M-type damage are shown in Table-3 respectively.
1.34 Sm , Se , Sd and safety factors for elastic analysis rules for M-type damage
Table-2: Safety factors for elastic analysis rules for M-type damage
Table-3: Safety load factors, strain factors and safety factor ( 3 ) for elasto-plastic analysis rules
for M-type damage
______________________________________________________________________________
2. RCC-MR: Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR Nuclear
Islands (French Code)
The French high-temperature code RCC-MR is an extension of the low-temperature code RCC-
M. Both codes have rules that are similar to the ASME Code rules. However, the RCCMR rules
are organized according to the damages that are possible at high temperature, which is a little
different from how the ASME Code is organized. RCC-MR distinguishes between two broad
types of possible damages, P type and S type. The P type damages result from the application of
a steadily increasing load or constant load. The S type damages occur due to repeated application
of loading. The P type damages include immediate excessive deformation, immediate plastic
instability, time-dependent excessive deformation, time-dependent plastic instability, time-
dependent fracture, and elastic or elasto-plastic instability. The S type damages include
progressive deformation and fatigue or progressive cracking. Most of the design rules contained
in RCC-MR are very similar to those in the ASME Code. As in the ASME Code, both elastic
analysis rules and elasto-plastic analysis rules are provided. Therefore, we will concentrate our
discussions mainly in those areas where there are differences.
As in the ASME Code, RCC-MR contains criteria for Service Load Levels A, C, and D, but
Service Load Level B is absent in RCC-MR. The classification of stresses into primary and
secondary, and into membrane, bending, and peak is identical to the ASME Code. To handle
multi-axial stresses, RCC-MR allows the use of either the maximum shear theory (Tresca) or
octahedral shear theory to compute stress intensities or stress range intensities. The primary
membrane and membrane-plus-bending stress allowable value S at low and high temperatures in
______________________________________________________________________________
RCC-MR are basically the same as those in the ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NH.
However, the rules are cast in terms of creep and creep-rupture usage fractions rather than S m, St,
and Smt as in the ASME Code.
To prevent progressive deformation in the low-temperature regime, RCC-MR allows the use of
either the 3Sm rule or a rule based on an efficiency diagram. The 3Sm rule is basically the same as
in Subsection NB. The efficiency diagram is used to convert a steady primary stress and a cyclic
secondary stress range into an effective primary stress that will produce the same deformation as
the combined steady primary and cyclic secondary stresses. To define the effective primary
stress, a secondary ratio SR is defined as the ratio between the secondary stress intensity range
and the maximum primary membrane stress intensity,
Q
SR1  (1)
max  Pm 
A similar ratio using the maximum local membrane-plus-bending stress intensity is also defined
as
Q
SR2  (2)
max  PL  Pb 
For each of the above two secondary ratios, an efficiency index (v) is obtained from an
efficiency diagram, which is equivalent to the following equation:
 1 for SR  0.46

v  1.093  0.926SR2 1  SR  for 0.46  SR  4
2
(3)

 1 SR for SR  4
The effective primary stress intensities are then defined as follows:
P1  max  Pm v1  (4)
P2  max  PL  Pb  v2  (5)
To prevent ratcheting, P1 has to be limited as a primary stress. Requiring P 1  Sm would ensure
the same safety margin with and without progressive deformation. However, in RCCMR, the
safety margin has been reduced for the case of progressive deformation by limiting P 1 to 1.2 Sm
(~Sy for austenitic stainless steels), which leads to the following Level A criterion for P 1:
P1  1.2Sm (6)
In a similar fashion, P2 for the Level A criterion is limited as follows:
P2  1.2*1.5Sm (7)
RCC-MR gives a rather elaborate step by step procedure for evaluating the fatigue usage
fraction, which is quite similar (but not identical) to that of Subsection NH. The elastically
calculated strain ranges are amplified due to plasticity by using a variation of Neuber‘s equation
______________________________________________________________________________
and a special treatment for any primary stress range that could lead to a similar amplification.
RCC-MR does consider the possibility of the presence of zones containing geometrical
discontinuities. No fatigue analysis is required for material located at a distance less than a
characteristic distance ‗d‘ from the discontinuity. Fatigue analysis is required for materials
beyond the characteristic distance ‗d‘, where for materials with maximum specified ultimate
tensile strength of less than 600 MPa (at room temperature), d = 0.05 mm.
At high temperatures, RCC-MR uses the same efficiency diagram as that used for the low
temperature ratcheting with the exception that, instead of P 2, the effective primary stress
intensity for membrane-plus-bending stress corrected by the creep bending shape factor P 3 is
defined as follows:
P3  max  PL   Pb  v3  (8)
where  is the creep bending shape factor (same as 1/Kt in Subsection NH), and v3 is determined
from the efficiency diagram corresponding to
Q
SR3  (9)
max  PL   Pb 
Both P1 and P3 are limited by limiting the creep usage fractions corresponding to P 1/1.2 and
P3/1.2 to 1.0.
At high temperatures, RCC-MR uses a creep-fatigue interaction rule based on the summation of
cycle fraction fatigue damage and time-fraction (linear damage rule) creep damage. This rule is
very similar to that used in Subsection NH, with the exception that an octahedral shear or Tresca
criterion is used for computing effective stress rather than Eq. (144). The strain range is amplified
to account for plasticity and creep effects in a slightly different fashion than Subsection NH, and
the effective stress is divided by a factor of 0.9 (rather than 0.67 as in Subsection NH) before
computing the creep damage.
2.1 Efficiency Diagram in RCC-MR
The efficiency diagram has been developed on the basis of tests on a large variety of specimen
geometry and loading, including non-axisymmetrical ones.
- Three bar assemblies, with constant load and different cyclically varying temperatures between
the central and the lateral bars,
- metal band with applied weight and cyclically varying curvature,
- tension-torsion,
- test on components, such as piping, under thermal shocks
______________________________________________________________________________
as well as on different materials (ferritic steel, austenitic steel, other steels, and Incoloy 800), and
test temperatures (from room temperature to 650°C). Each test is characterized by the efficiency
index (v) and the secondary ratio (SR).
v  P Peff
(10)
SR  Q P
The test results are plotted with secondary ratio, SR, along the x axis and the efficiency index, v,
along the y axis. The results showed scatter, which occurs largely due to difficulty in estimating
the stabilized cumulative strain (after sufficient number of cycles) and material characteristics
(especially the stress-strain curves). The lower bound to these data represents the efficiency
diagram. For application to codes and standards, P eff is determined from a lower bound to all
experimental data leading to the functional relationship between SR and v given in Eq. (3).
2.2 Efficiency Diagram vs. Bree Diagram
The Bree diagram can be plotted in the efficiency diagram coordinates by first transforming the
Bree diagram limit to give (after noting that Sy  2.2Sm for stainless steels) the following for the
primary membrane:
G  SR1   v1  Pm 1.2Sm (11)
 1 SR1 for SR1  4
where G  SR1    .
4  4  SR1  for 0  SR1  4
A similar transformation can be used for the primary membrane-plus-bending case. A

comparison between the efficiency diagram and the Bree diagram transformed to the new
coordinate system with K=2.5 can be done for several types of loading situations. Except at low
values of SR1, the two diagrams usually coincide with each other for the case of general
membrane loading (P m). The curve for pure bending and the local primary membrane falls below
the curves for the general primary membrane. The curve for the local primary membrane-plus-
bending loading falls between those for the pure bending and the pure membrane loading cases,
as expected. Note that all the transformed Bree diagrams fall below the efficiency diagram of
RCC-MR and are generally also lower than the lower bound used to justify the RCC-MR curve.
Thus, the Bree diagrams, transformed to the efficiency diagram coordinate system, provide lower
bounds not only to the efficiency diagram of RCC-MR but also to the test data used in the
development of the RCC-MR approach. The same general trends are also observed if the
efficiency diagram is transformed to the Bree diagram coordinate system and superimposed on
the Bree diagram.
______________________________________________________________________________
2.3 Remarks on RCC-MR code
RCC-MR was developed in France as a high-temperature extension to RCC-M, for the French
breeder reactor program. The basic rules in RCC-MR are very similar to those in ASME Code
Subsection NH. RCC-MR provides more detailed instructions on how to carry out fatigue and
creep-fatigue design analysis than the ASME Codes. It also uses a somewhat different approach
to analyzing creep ratcheting without the use of isochronous stress-strain curves. But the basic
safety factors used in generating the design curves in the two codes are comparable. The choice
of materials in RCC-MR is also limited; however, modified 9Cr-1Mo is codified in RCC-MR.
3. Procedure R5, Assessment Procedure for the High-Temperature Response of

Structures (British Procedure)
The high temperature design procedures were developed many times ago and have been
incorporated into standards like ASME and RCC-MR. However, the high temperature defect
assessment procedures were developed within UK and named as R5. It is widely used in UK
power generation industry for plant life assessment and has also been incorporated into a British
standard document PD6539. An ASTM standard is also available for getting the creep crack
growth data of a material. R5 also uses a time-dependent fracture assessment diagram TDFAD
approach for assessing the incubation and early stages of creep growth. This method is similar to
that adopted in R6 except that a creep-toughness is used instead of the conventional fracture
toughness and time dependent stress and strain parameters are required.
3.1 Overview of R5 code
The objective of R5 code is to provide a comprehensive assessment document to the practitioner.

It is based on expert knowledge in structural mechanics and materials science. It is intended to
augment to augment and replace, wherever necessary, the provisions of ASME code case N-47
(now, Section-III, subsection-NH) and the French code RCC-MR. There is also additional need
for extending the rules of these codes to enable the assessment of defects and weldments.
It has seven volumes, the contents of which are given below.
Volume-1: Overview of R5.

Volume-2: Analysis and assessment method for defect-free structures.
Volume-3: Creep-fatigue crack initiation.
Volume-4: An assessment procedure for defects under steady loading.
Volume-5: Interim guidance on creep-fatigue crack growth assessment (application to thin shell
structures).
Addendum 1: Creep fatigue crack growth under high strain fatigue condition.
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume-6: Dissimilar metal welds:- A preliminary assessment procedure.

Volume-7: Behaviour of similar welds:- Guidance for steady creep loading.
3.2 Scope of R5
It is based on extension of low temperature defect assessment procedure R6. The status notes are
very important. It alerts the user to potential difficulties in the assessment and identifies the
development requirements. It is less restrictive than ASME and RCC-MR codes. Full inelastic
stress analysis is not required for simple loading conditions. It is based on reference stress and
shakedown concepts. In case of ratcheting, detailed inelastic analysis is required.
3.3 Restrictions of R5
It doesn‘t consider severe dynamic loading such as seismic events, creep-buckling phenomena in
slender and geometrically unstable structures. The creep buckling is deliberately avoided as most
of the power plant components operating at high temperature are not likely to see creep buckling.
Residual stress is not explicitly considered in R5. However, if the exact residual stress
distribution is known, then it may be incorporated into the analysis and the damage caused by
cyclic loading may be determined.
3.4 Materials data required for damage assessment in R5
The material data required for damage assessment can be found in R66. The material properties
that are required are the following.
(i) Monotonic and cyclic stress-strain curve.

(ii) Creep deformation data
(iii) Creep-rupture data
(iv) Stress relaxation data
(v) Continuous cycling fatigue endurance data for a specified size of crack initiation as a
function of total strain range.
(vi) Creep ductility as a function of stress, rupture time and strain rate.
(vii) Constants for fatigue crack growth law
(viii) Constants for creep-fatigue crack growth law.
(ix) Constants for creep crack growth law.
______________________________________________________________________________
3.5 Basic assessment procedure in R5 for defect-free structures
Limits for short-term plastic deformation
Option-1:
Use FE analysis. Find the maximum equivalent elastically evaluated stress in the structure. If
SY is the yield stress of the material at the temperature of interest, check if the following
condition is satisfied.
For primary loading,

 E, max  0.6SY (12)
For both primary and secondary loading (cyclic),
 E, max  1.8SY for ferritic steel
(13)
 2.4SY for austenitic steel
Option-2:
Pm  0.6SY for primary membrane stress
PL  Pb  0.9SY for primary membrane and bending stress
(14)
  PL  Pb   1.8SY for ferritic steel
 2.4SY for austenitic steel
Option-3:
Perform the limit load analysis of the structure with yield stress taken as 60% of the actual yield
stress at that temperature. Check if the applied load is less than or equal to the limit load
calculated by the above method. This is used when there is likelihood of strain going to the
plastic range and the dominant failure mode is expected to be plastic collapse.
3.6 Limits for creep rupture
Step-1: Calculate the reference stress  ref . This can be done by two options described below.
Option-1:
It is applicable for structures with thin rectangular section (i.e., plates, beams etc.) where there is
not much significant temperature gradients.
P  P 2 2
1/2

Max  B  B 
 ref        PL    (15)
Over the volume  3  3   

______________________________________________________________________________
Option-2:
It is applicable to structures that are not applicable in option-2. The reference stress is evaluated
using the lower bound limit load PL using the yield stress  Y . If P is the applied load on the
structure, the reference stress  ref is calculated as
P
 ref   Y (16)
PL
Step-2: Calculation of stress concentration factor  .
 E ,max
 (17)
 ref
where  E ,max is the maximum of elastically evaluated equivalent stress in the structure over all
the Gauss points.
Step-3: Estimation of creep-rupture stress  ref

R
by two different ways for creep ductile and creep
brittle materials. Some of the creep ductile materials are: 0.5Cr0.5Mo0.25V, 1Cr0.5Mo,
2.25Cr1Mo, 9Cr1Mo, 12Cr1MoV(W), SS304, SS316 and SS321 steel respectively except their
welds and heat affected zones which are considered to be creep brittle. Hence, for creep ductile
materials,
 ref
R
 1  0.13    1 ref (18)
For creep brittle materials,
 1
 ref
R
  1 ref
 1  (19)
 n 
where ‗n‘ is the creep strain hardening exponent of the material.
Step-4: Assessment of creep-rupture life, the creep usage factor U c is calculated as

k
 t 
Uc    i  (20)
i 1  Tdi 
where Tdi is the creep rupture time corresponding to the stress  ref
R
in a particular stress cycle.
The condition for avoiding creep rupture is Uc  1.
3.7 Cyclically enhanced creep
Here, calculate the core stress  core instead of  ref

R
to calculate the time for creep rupture. This is
done in the following way, i.e, evaluate X and Y and use it to calculate  core .
______________________________________________________________________________
 ref Qrange
X ,Y (21)
SY SY
where Qrange is the secondary stress range and S y is the material yield stress and  ref is the
reference stress calculated using the primary stresses. The core stress is defined as

 core  
 Y 
 Y  2 Y 1  X   1 S for Y 1  X   1
(22)
 XYS y for Y 1  X   1
The creep usage factor can now be defined as
k
t
W  i (23)
i 1 Tc ,i
where Tc ,i is the creep-rupture time, evaluated using the core stress  core
3.8 Creep-Fatigue crack initiation
The criteria for creep-fatigue crack initiation according to R5 (for defect-free structures) can be
written as
k
n t
U f  Uc   i  i  1 (24)
i 1 Ni Ti
where U f and U c are fatigue and creep usage factors respectively.
3.9 Basic R5 defect assessment procedure
The background of basic defect assessment lies on the use of ―Reference Stress Method‖. The
reference stress is defined as
P
 ref   Y (25)
PL  , a 
Where P is the applied load, PL is the limit load and is the yield stress  Y is the yield stress of the
material. Having estimated the reference stress, different time parameters are calculated, i.e.,
time for stress redistribution tred, time for transition t T, time for creep rupture t r etc.
K 1  2 
tred  (26)
EC*
where K is the stress intensity factor, E is young‘s modulus,  is Poisson‘s ratio, n is creep strain
rate hardening exponent. The transition time is given by
______________________________________________________________________________
K 1  2 
tT  (27)
E  n  1 C*
The creep rupture time determined from the material creep rupture curve corresponding to the
reference stress. The crack tip parameter is estimated using the reference stress technique as
C *   ref ref R (28)
where ref is the reference strain rate corresponding to the reference stress  ref . R ' is the
characteristic length defined as
2
 K 
R 
  ref 
'
(29)
 
The parameter C* characterizes the crack tip stress and strain rate fields for times in excess of
stress redistribution time. However, prior to the attainment of wide spread creep condition, the
crack tip stress and strain rate fields are characterized by a parameter usually denoted as C(t). For
times in excess of the redistribution time, C(t) approaches C*. An interpolation formula for C(t)
during the transition between initial elastic loading and steady state secondary creep can be given
as
C (t ) t
*
 1 (30)
C tT
Ainsworth and Budden derived another interpolation formula for a material obeying Norton‘s
secondary creep law and is given as
n 1
 t 
1 
C (t )   n  1 tT 
 n 1
(31)
C*  t 
1   1
  n  1 tT 
The time required for the crack to propagate by an amount a can be calculated if we know the
rate of crack propagation. This is given as
a  D  C *

(32)
for ‗t‘ greater than ‗t red‘ and
a  2D C* 

(33)
for ‗t‘ less than or equal to ‗t red‘. D and  are the material constants.
Finally, the validity criteria for use of C* has to be checked it is written as
a ref
2
 0.5 (34)
EC*
______________________________________________________________________________
Exercise-1
A single edge cracked specimen of width 100mm and initial crack size of 20mm is loaded with a
stress of 300 Mpa at 360oC. Calculate the steady state crack growth rate and the time to rupture
(i.e., when the crack growth becomes equal to that of remaining ligament). Given:
E=185Gpa
Steady state creep law:

c  0   0  where 0  6.25E  05 hour -1 ,  0  400 MPa and n  16.
n
Creep rupture curve:

tr  A   where A  4000 X  400 ,   16
16
Creep ductility:  *f  0.25

Use EPRI handbook solution for J-integral to evaluate C*-integral using the analogy as given
below.
C *   00ch1  a / W  p p0 
n 1
where c  a 1  a / W  , a  0.02 m, W  0.1 m
 
P0  1.455BW  0 1  a / W    a / W  
2 2

1/2
 a /W 
The function h1 is given as:
h1=34.1, 2.90 and 0.225 for a/W= 0.125, 0.25 and 0.375 respectively.
The limit load solution for the above specimen is given in handbook and written as
PL  1.155BW  Y 1  a / W  1.232  a / W    a / W  
2 3
 
a ref
2
Use the validity criteria  0.5 to check the applicability of C*.

EC*
Exercise-2
Solve the above problem 16.1 using reference stress method of solution for C* instead of the
EPRI solution. Use the following relationships for C* and SIF ―K‖
C*   ref ref R'
0.752  2.02  a / W   0.37 1  sin  3 
K  P 2W tan   
BW cos 
a
where  
2W
Check also the validity criteria for C*.
______________________________________________________________________________
It may be noted that the remaining life at any time, t, cannot exceed tr  ref  t  , where tr is the
rupture time from uni-axial stress vs. time-to-rupture data, and  ref  t  is the reference stress,
which is calculated using the crack size, a(t) as
P y
 ref  t   (35)
PL  y , a t 
3.10 Creep-Fatigue Evaluation in R5 defect assessment procedure
The R5 procedure permits use of ductility exhaustion for creep-fatigue evaluation, if the material
data are available. If appropriate data are not available, a linear damage summation similar to
that recommended by ASME Code Subsection NH is used. The R5 procedure for the evaluation
of component failure due to creep-fatigue is different from that in Subsection NH and RCC-MR
code. It does not consider the end of the creep fatigue life to be indicative of component failure
but merely the initiation of a macroscopic crack. It then assesses the time for the crack to grow to
a critical size, using the simplified C* approach to predict crack propagation during hold periods,
and a Paris Law type relationship for the cyclic growth during rapid transients, that is,
da da da
  (36)
dt cycle dN transient dt hold
The crack growth using the above relation must be determined for each cycle type. The total
crack extension or remaining life can be determined by summing the crack growth per cycle. In
doing so, the dependence of  da dt cycle on crack depth and dwell period must be accounted for.
The dwell period affects  da dt hold through the direct integration of the creep crack growth rate
and also  da dN transient through the possible modification of parameters in the fatigue crack
growth law.
3.11 Remarks on the R5 Procedure
Creep cracking is more of an issue in residual life assessment than design. Neither the ASME
Code nor the RCC-MR Code addresses the subject at all. Only R5, which is a guideline, not a
code, considers creep cracking explicitly. Therefore, the use of this procedure in the design of
high temperature components is limited. However, this procedure presents the use of ductility
exhaustion as an alternative to the life fraction rule for calculating the creep component of
damage.
______________________________________________________________________________
The use of ductility exhaustion for estimating creep damage had been proposed as an element of
the rules for a possible extension of ASME VIII, Division 2, for elevated temperature
applications. There are some concerns among the design and users community about the use of
the linear damage rule to estimate creep/fatigue damage to a high temperature component
working at elevated temperatures. The use of ductility exhaustion instead of the linear damage
rule may be more suitable for estimating creep damage.
4. Remarks on safety factors of two and twenty on fatigue life in air
The original purpose of adding fatigue as one of the failure modes for which explicit design
criteria were provided in Section III was to assure that the reduction of the nominal safety factor
for the primary stress limit from four on ultimate tensile strength to three did not result in a
decrease in reliability if the vessel was subjected to cyclic stresses. It was originally intended to
be a design consideration, not necessarily a valid measure of the eventual operational fatigue life
of the vessel, because the manufacturer had no control over how the vessel was operated.
The original fatigue curve for reactor pressure vessel steels in the code was derived by first
fitting the then available data to a Manson-Coffin power law, including an endurance limit. A
modified Goodman diagram was then used to adjust for mean stress conservatively for stress
amplitudes less than the yield stress. The final step was to shift the curve in recognition of the
fact that laboratory data were to be applied to actual vessels. This was achieved by applying a
factor of two on stress and twenty on cycles, whichever was more conservative. The intent of
these factors has been a source of controversy ever since. Some have interpreted these to be
factors of safety, but according to one of the original participators in the formulation of the code
procedures, "nothing could be further from the truth." Accordingly, it is not to be expected that a
vessel will actually operate safely for twenty times its specified life. The factor of twenty applied
to cycles was developed to account for real effects. It is the product of the following sub-factors:
(a) Scatter of data (minimum to mean): 2.0; (b) Size effect: 2.5; (c) Surface finish, atmosphere,
etc. 4.0. "Atmosphere" was meant to reflect the effects of an industrial atmosphere in comparison
to air-conditioned laboratory air, not a specific coolant (reactor water coolant, impure helium,
etc.). Since a factor of twenty on cycles has little effect at high cycles, a factor of two on stress
was added because at 10,000 cycles (the approximate border between high-cycle and low-cycle
fatigue) it gave the same result as a factor of twenty on cycles. Since the adoption of these
factors by the ASME Code, they have been accepted by virtually every other nuclear design
code.
5. Remarks on the rules for estimation of creep damage
Normally creep damage in most materials is a bulk phenomenon, and as such, is not influenced
significantly by environment. However, creep tests on Alloy 617 in impure helium show a
significant decrease in rupture time and ductility as compared to air. The results have been
______________________________________________________________________________
explained in terms of the lack of formation of a protective oxide scale in the helium environment
followed by decarburization of the alloy. Currently, we do not have prediction models for creep
rupture life that can account for such micro-structural details. Creep data for code purposes are
generally derived from laboratory tests plotted as time to rupture against stress at various
temperatures and as functions of environment. Creep rupture data are also sometimes plotted as a
Monkman-Grant plot, which is a power-law relationship between minimum creep rate and time
to rupture.
 Q  
m  A exp    tR (37)
 RT 
where Q is activation energy, R is universal gas constant, t R is time to rupture, and T is

temperature in Kelvin. If sufficient data are not available, the data are often plotted as stress vs.
Larson-Miller parameter, which is defined as
LMP  T  C  log tR  (38)
where T is in Kelvin, t R is the rupture time, and C is an adjustable parameter. Although other
empirical correlations for fitting creep rupture data are available [e.g., Manson-Harferd
parameter, the Larson-Miller parameter generally fits creep data well and has been used by the
Materials Properties Council (MPC) to plot creep rupture data of several alloys up to very high
temperatures (e.g., 816°C). Similar Larson-Miller plots can also be generated for time to 1%
creep. Some of the alloys (e.g., Alloy 617) considered for high temperature applications display
non-classical creep behavior, i.e., they do not show the usual sequence of primary creep followed
by steady state creep and finally tertiary creep. Instead, creep tends to follow an increasingly
steep curve (like tertiary creep) from the beginning of the test. This has implication for allowable
high-temperature, time-dependent primary stress (St), which has been defined for materials with
classical creep behavior. A new set of criteria for materials with non-classical creep behavior
needs to be defined for these classes of materials. The Omega method of MPC which has been
proposed for modeling tertiary creep behavior of classical creep curves, may be useful for this
purpose.
6. Remarks on the rules for fatigue damage at high temperature
Fatigue damage at relatively low temperatures, e.g., operating temperatures for light water
reactors (LWRs), has been known to depend on environment. At elevated temperatures however,
an additional factor is the effect of thermal creep. The original low-temperature design fatigue
curves in the ASME code contained a note that the fatigue curves do not consider the deleterious
effects of "unusually corrosive environments." The intent was to distinguish this from the
normally expected corrosion effect in vessels, which is accommodated by increasing the
______________________________________________________________________________
thickness to provide a corrosion allowance. That technique does not ameliorate stress corrosion
fatigue. The intent was that this effect was to be explicitly considered by the design specification.
Later editions of Section III have replaced the term "unusually corrosive environments" by
"corrosive environments." However, the ASME Code does not give any guidance on how to take
the corrosive environmental effect into account. An example of the importance of environment in
fatigue design can be found in the LWR industry.
Virtually all the vessels and piping of existing LWRs in the U.S. are designed using ASME
Code, Section III, which does not take into account the effects of LWR environments on the
fatigue design curves. However, a significant body of laboratory-generated fatigue data in the
LWR environment currently exists. These data indicate that the LWR environment can, under
certain conditions, lead to loss of fatigue life that can use up most or all of the factor of twenty
on cycles implicit in the fatigue curves currently in the code. Proposed changes in the fatigue
design procedure to account for LWR water effects have been submitted to the ASME Code
Committee. A similar situation exists with respect to thermal creep effects at high temperatures.
Extensive fatigue tests at elevated temperatures conducted under the US LMFBR program
showed that fatigue life of the austenitic stainless steels in high vacuum or air can be drastically
reduced by the imposition of a tensile hold period. The cyclic life reduction factor can be much
greater than the safety factor of twenty that is used in the design fatigue curves. Therefore, the
ASME code developed Subsection NH in which the effect of thermal creep is explicitly taken
into account. As mentioned earlier, Subsection NH and most of the other international codes
adopted the (cycle fraction/time fraction) linear damage rule for the purpose of evaluating creep-
fatigue damage. An alternative version of the linear damage rule uses strain fraction (instead of
time fraction) for computing creep damage.
For austenitic stainless steels under long tensile hold, the cycle fraction portion of the damage is
generally negligible. In these cases, the method reduces to a ductility exhaustion equation, which
is mechanistically more attractive than the time fraction approach and has been adopted by the
British Code R5 for the austenitic stainless steels. As mentioned earlier, other life predictive
rules can correlate creep-fatigue test data as well or better than the linear damage rule. These
include the Damage Rate Equations, Strain Range Partitioning (SRP) Equations and Frequency
Separation (FS) Equation. Various reports have shown that these methods can predict creep-
fatigue lives of austenitic stainless steels and Hastelloy-XR better than the linear damage rule.
Research by Japanese scientists has shown that the time-fraction/cycle-fraction linear damage
rule or the ductility exhaustion method can predict the life of modified 9Cr-1Mo steel under
tensile hold but not under compressive hold. No significant new predictive model for failure of
initially un-cracked specimens has been proposed in recent years, although significant advances
have been made in the area of crack propagation at high temperatures.
______________________________________________________________________________
Damage Rate Equations are a set of crack and inter-granular cavity growth rate (or damage rate)
equations in terms of the inelastic strain rate, which accounts for the greater damage caused by
lower inelastic strain rates (i.e., creep-like) than higher inelastic strain rates (i.e., plasticity-like)
in a continuous manner. Since this method does not distinguish between plastic and creep strains,
it can be easily integrated with the unified constitutive equations that are necessary at high
temperatures. Further, since this method takes into account the increasing damage accumulation
with decreasing strain rate (i.e., longer hold times), it should be reliable for extrapolation from
the database. On the other hand, the SRP equations divide the inelastic strain into plastic and
creep components in the classical sense and are, therefore, incompatible with the unified
constitutive equations. The FS equation is expressed in terms of the frequency of loading and
basically attributes most of the creep-fatigue damage to environmental effects. None of these
alternative life predictive models has been applied to the creep-fatigue database available for
most of the materials being considered for very high temperature applications.
At high temperatures, creep, fatigue, and environment interact. For example, in addition to its
fatigue life (without hold time) being decreased with decreasing strain rate, the fatigue life of
austenitic stainless steel at a given strain rate is increased significantly in high purity sodium or
high vacuum when compared to that in air. Fatigue tests (without hold) conducted on Alloy 617
and Hastelloy X at high temperatures in impure helium environment show no reduction in
fatigue life compared to that in air. Generally, in the absence of hold periods, fatigue lives of the
alloys tested in impure helium environment do not show any deleterious effect compared to those
in air. However, at high temperatures, cyclic fatigue lives (without hold) of most alloys decrease
with decreasing strain rate. In materials (e.g., austenitic stainless steels, modified 9Cr-1Mo steel)
that are prone to grain boundary cavitation at high temperature, environment plays a relatively
minor role when they are subjected to cycles with long tensile hold time.
On the other hand, environment can play a significant role in the same materials under cycles
with compressive hold period. For materials that are not prone to caviation (e.g., 2.25Cr-1Mo
steel tested at low strain range), compressive hold can be more damaging than tensile hold. At a
minimum, two types of models are needed for life prediction of high-temperature fatigue. First,
for materials that sustain bulk creep damage under tensile holds, either the ductility exhaustion
(or the linear damage rule) equation or the alternative life prediction methods discussed above
can be used. The continuum damage mechanics approach can also be utilized for this type of
materials. Second, for materials that do not experience bulk creep damage but sustain surface
cracking due to environmental (e.g., oxidation or decarburization) effect, a different life
predictive method for crack initiation is needed. The available models in this area are rather
limited. A life predictive model for 2.25Cr-1Mo steel which combines an oxide-cracking model
with the damage rate equation for crack growth will be more attractive. These and other types of
______________________________________________________________________________
environmental fatigue damage models should be explored further for very high temperature
applications.
References
1. Penny R.K. (ed.). Proceedings Conference on Ageing of Materials and Lifetime

Assessment, CAPE '91, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 55, 1-370, 1992.
2. Taira, S., Tanaka, K. and Ohji, K. A mechanism of deformation of metals high
temperatures with special reference to the tension test and creep test, Bull. JSME, 3 (10),
1960.
3. Saxena A, Sherlock TP, Viswanathan R. Evaluation of remaining life of high temperature
headers: a case history. In: Proceedings of EPRI workshop on life extension and
assessment of fossil plant, 1988.
4. Liaw PK, Saxena A, Schaeffer J. Estimating remaining life of elevated-temperature steam
pipes- Part II. Fracture mechanics analyses. Engng. Fract. Mech. 1989; 32: 709-722.
5. Thoraval G. Creep of high temperature steam piping: EDF experience with fossil fired
power plants from 1955 to 1987. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1989; 116: 389- 398.
6. Manson, S.S., Halford, G.R. and Hirshberg, M.H. Creep-Fatigue Analysis by Strain Range
Partitioning, in Proceedings Symposium on Design for Elevated Temperature Environment,
ASME, New York, 1972.
7. Miksch M, Schücktanz G. Evaluation of fatigue of reactor components by on-line
monitoring of transients. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1990; 119: 239- 247.
8. Aufort P, Bimont G, Chau TH, Fournier I, Morilhat P, Souchois T, Cordier G. On line
fatiguemeter: a large experiment in French nuclear plants. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1991; 129:
177-184.
9. Sakurai T, Sugai S, Aoki M. Life assessment of high-temperature components of thermal
power plants in Japan. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1993; 139: 311- 317.
10. Liaw PK, Saxena A, Perrin J. Life extension technology for steam pipe systems- Part I.
Development of material properties; Part II. Development of life prediction methodology.
Engg. Fract. Mech. 1993; 45: 759- 798.
11. Gerber D. EPRI‘s fatigue monitoring system, EPRI fatigue seminar Operating Power Plant
Fatigue Damage Assessment, Burlington VT, USA, Aug. 1995.
12. Bartonicek J, Zaiss W, Hienstorfer W, Kocklemann H., Schöckle F. Monitoring system and
determination of actual fatigue usage. Nucl. Engng. Des. 1995; 153: 127-133.
13. Jovanovic A, Verelst L. (Eds.). Implementation of power plant component life assessment
technology using a knowledge-based system, In: Proceedings of the SP 249 Project Final
Workshop, Feb. 1997.
14. ASME Boiler and pressure code, Case N-47 (29) Class 1 components in elevated
temperature service, Section 3, Division 1, New York: ASME, 1992.
______________________________________________________________________________
15. RCC-MR. Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR Nuclear
Islands, AFCEN, Paris, 2002.
16. R6, Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects, British Energy, Report R6-
Rev.4, 2002.
17. Goodall IW (Ed.). Assessment procedure for the high temperature response of structures,
R5. Nuclear electric procedure; 1998. Issue2.
18. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, New York, 1995.
19. Nuclear Electric R5: Assessment procedure for high temperature response of structures,
Nuclear Electric plc Report R5 Issue 1: Vol. 4, assessment procedure for defects under
steady loading; Vol. 5, creep-fatigue crack growth, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, UK,
1990.
20. Reidel R, Rice JR. Tensile Cracks In Creeping in Solids, in Proceedings 12th ASTM
Fracture Mechanics Conference, ASTM STP 700, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1980.
21. Kumar V, German D, Shih CF. An engineering approach for elastic-plastic fracture
analysis, EPRI final report NP 1931; 1982.
22. Porowski, J.S., Kasrai, B. and Cervanka, L. (1992) Practical Design Methods for
Redundant Structures at Elevated Temperatures Service, ASM E PV P, 232, 1992.
23. Milne, I., Ainsworth, R.A., Dowling, A.R. and Stewart, A.T. Assessment of the Integrity of
Structures Containing Defects, CEGB Report R/H/R6/Rev. 3, CEG B, Berkeley, UK, 1986.
Nuclear Power- Clean Power, Green Power, Safe Power
We Care for Our Neighbours...
Workshop Convener Shri S.M. Ingole

Chief Engineer, Stress Analysis & Seismology, NPCIL
Workshop Director Shri H.S. Kushwaha

Raja Ramanna Fellow, BARC
Workshop Coordinator Shri R.K. Singh

Secretary, Indian Nuclear Society &
Head, Media Relations & Public Awareness Section, BARC
Venue: AERB Auditorium, AERB, Anushaktinagar
Organized by: Indian Nuclear Society Project Square

Anushaktinagar, Mumbai, 400 094

Volume 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INS NATIONAL WORKSHOP

CONVENER: SHRI S.M. INGOLE,

DESIGN OF NUCLEAR PRESSURE VESSEL &

Indian Nuclear Society

Overview of Pressure Vessel Design as

1.0 Introduction to ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel (B&PV) code

2.0 Structure of ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code

Section I: Rules for Construction of Power Boilers

Section II: Materials

Part A - Ferrous Material Specifications

Part B - Nonferrous Material Specifications

Part C - Specifications for Welding Rods, Electrodes, and Filler Metals

Section III: Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components

Subsection NCA - General Requirements for Division 1 and Division 2

Division 1- Metallic Components

Subsection NB - Class 1 Components

Subsection NC - Class 2 Components

Subsection ND - Class 3 Components

Subsection NE - Class MC Components

Subsection NF - Piping and Components Supports

Subsection NG - Core Support Structures

Subsection NH - Class 1 Components in elevated temperature service

Division 2 - Code for Concrete Containments

high level radioactive material and waste

Division 5 - High temperature reactors

Section IV: Rules for Construction of Heating Boilers

Section V: Non-destructive Examination

Section VII: Recommended Guidelines for the Care of Power Boilers

Section VIII: Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels

Division 1- Unfired Pressure Vessels

Division 2 - Alternative Rules

Division 3 - Alternative Rules for Construction of High Pressure Vessels

Section IX: Welding and Brazing Qualifications

Section X: Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels

3.0 Concept of Design Margins

4.0 Applicability of Code Sections

5.0 Introduction to Nuclear Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Div. 1

5.1 Safety Classification of components:

 Reactor Pressure Vessel

 Cooling water Systems

 Safety Class 1 Sub-section NB

Based on frequency of occurrence, service loads are classified as:

6.0 Scope and applicability of Section III-NB (NB-1000)

6.1 Material requirements for Class 1 Components (NB-2000)

For Ferritic Steels:

Design Stress Intensity Sm = Min. of [2/3 y or 1/3u] at RT/DT

For Austenitic Stainless Steels:

Sm = Min. of [2/3 y at RT or 1/3u at DT or 90% y at DT]

If component alignment is important (e.g. in mating bodies as in flanges etc.) then:

Sm = Min. of [2/3 y or 1/3u] at DT

At temperature below creep regime:

Ferritic steels: Min. of [2/3 y or 1/3.5u] at RT/DT

For austenitic steels: Min. of [2/3 y at RT or 1/3.5u at DT or 90% y at DT]

In creep regime, the allowable stress is the lowest of the following:

Here Favg is a multiplier specified in Section II, part D.

8.0 Fabrication procedures for Class 1 Components (NB-4000)

8.1 Fabrication procedures for Class 2 and Class 3 Components (NC/ND-4000)

9.0 Post-weld heat treatment

10.0 Non-destructive Examination (NB/NC/ND-5000)