A Computational Procedure for

D. Mackenzie Calculating Primary Stress for the

J. T. Boyle
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, Scotland
ASME B&PV Code
A simple procedure for calculating primary stress consistent with the ASME B&PV
Code is presented. The procedure is based on an iterative elastic analysis technique
referred to as the elastic compensation method, which invokes the lower-bound limit
load theorem to define maximum allowable static loads for the vessel. The method
is simple to implement as an automatic computational procedure in a conventional
elastic finite element program and requires minimal input from the designer.

Introduction
The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Sections III
and VIII (Division 2) (ASME, 1989) postulate three distinct
"types" of stress associated with three distinct failure mech-
anisms: peak, primary, and secondary stress. Peak stresses are
highly localized stresses which occur at local structural dis-
continuities and are limited by fatigue considerations. For
brevity, peak stresses are not considered in this paper but will
be addressed in future work. Primary stress is associated with
gross plastic deformation under static loading. Collapse will
occur if the structure is unable to support the applied loads,
and thus the primary stress field is load or equilibrium-con-
trolled. The primary stress field p is a statically admissible
stress field (in equilibrium with the externally applied loads),
with maximum allowable value limited with respect to the limit
load of the structure. Secondary stress is associated with failure
due to ratcheting under cyclic loading. Secondary stress arises
from compatibility requirements (constraint of adjacent parts
or self-constraint), and therefore the secondary stress field q
is deformation or displacement-controlled. Secondary stresses
are self-limiting in that local yielding and minor distortions
lead to stress redistribution such that failure does not occur
from a single application of load. However, if the magnitude
of secondary plus primary stress is too great, the residual
stresses required to ensure shakedown cannot be set up in the
structure and ratcheting occurs. The maximum allowable value
of secondary stress, taken in conjunction with the primary
stress, is therefore defined with respect to the shakedown load
of the structure.
Code assessment of pressure components is usually based
on linear elastic analysis. Essentially (neglecting peak stresses),
the elastically calculated stress field ae is assumed to be the
sum of the primary and secondary stress fields
ae=p + q (1)
In pressure vessel design, the magnitude of p is limited by the
static load-carrying capacity or limit load of the structure. The
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division and presented at the
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Denver, Colorado, July 25-29, 1993,
of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by
the PVP Division, October 14, 1993; revised manuscript received May 24, 1994.
Associate Technical Editor: W. K. Liu.
lower-bound limit load theorem states that if for a given load
there exists a statically admissible stress field in which the stress
nowhere exceeds yield, then that load is a lower bound on the
limit load of the structure (Calladine, 1985). By definition, the
primary stress field p is a statically admissible stress field, and
thus meets one requirement of the lower-bound limit load
theorem. If, in addition, stress field p satisfies the material
yield criterion, the primary stress field fully satisfies the lower-
bound theorem and the applied load is a safe lower bound on
the limit load of the structure. The yield criterion adopted in
ASME B&PV Code Section III and Section VIII Division 2 is
the maximum shear stress theory, also known as the Tresca
criterion, and maximum allowable stresses are defined in terms
of stress intensity SI (the algebraic difference between the larg-
est and smallest principal stress). Code stress limits are defined
in terms of allowable stress, Sm. Two different primary stress
limits are defined in the Code for combinations of three types
of primary stress. The maximum permissible value of general
primary membrane stress intensity Pm is Sm, but for local
primary membrane stress intensity PL, general primary mem-
brane plus primary bending stress intensity (Pm + Pb), and
local primary membrane plus primary bending stress intensity
(PL + Pb) the maximum is 1.5 Sm.
The tabulated values of Sm given in the Code are based on
consideration of both the yield stress and ultimate tensile
strength of the material such that Sm is notionally two-thirds
of "design" yield strength aY (ASME, 1969). The primary
stress limits defined in terms of design yield stress aY are,
therefore,
Pm<-ffy PL<oY PM + Pb<aY PL + Pb<aY
That is, the Code restricts the primary stress to within the
Tresca design yield locus. Thus, the primary stress field fully
satisfies the lower-bound limit load theorem, and " . . . con-
servatively assures the prevention of collapse as determined by
the principles of limit analysis." (ASME B&PV Code Section
VIII Division 2 Appendix 4-136 Applications of Plastic Anal-
ysis (b)).
The magnitude of q (in conjunction with p) is limited by
the shakedown load of the structure; that is, ae=p + q (ne-

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116/339

Copyright 1994 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 glecting peak stress) is limited to ensure shakedown under cyclic
loading. The Code assumes shakedown occurs if the calculated
elastic stress range is less than or equal to twice the yield stress;
therefore, the limit on primary plus secondary stress intensity
(P+Q), is 2oy or 3Sm (assuming Sm = 2/3aY).
The elastic stress field ae of Eq. (1) is uniquely defined by
elastic finite element analysis, but the primary and secondary
stress fields, p and q, respectively, are not. The B&PV Code
design by analysis rules require the designer to: ensure the
maximum total stress satisfies the fatigue limit; isolate peak
stresses and ensure that the remaining primary plus secondary
stress meets the shakedown requirement; identify a conserv-
ative primary stress system and limit the maximum primary
0 / ITERATION
stress to prevent plastic collapse. To meet these requirements,
the designer must partition the calculated elastic stress field Fig. 1 Maximum stress per iteration
into primary, secondary, and peak categories, which is prob-
lematic when the design is based on 2-D and 3-D solid finite
element analysis. Here a simple systematic design by analysis (The stress used may be either stress intensity or von Mises
procedure based on the foregoing definitions of primary and equivalent stress, depending on the yield criterion used.) This
secondary stress and application of the elastic compensation procedure effectively stiffens the structure at low stress regions
method is proposed. and softens it at high stress regions, causing the stresses to
redistribute in a manner similar to failure mechanisms such as
plastic hinges. The magnitude of the redistributed stress field,
Stress Categorization by Elastic Compensation as, may increase or decrease between iterations, but over a
The elastic compensation method has been developed from number of iterations there is generally a net decrease in max-
a stress categorization technique called the reduced modulus imum stress value, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
method, originally proposed as a tool for categorizing stresses The stress, strain, and displacement fields obtained by the
in piping systems (Dhalla, 1984; Severud, 1984; Roche, 1986; elastic compensation procedure are substituted into plastic
Boyle and Spence, 1987) and later extended to more general bound theorems to obtain approximate failure loads for struc-
pressure vessel applications (Dhalla, 1987; Marriott, 1988; tures. For a given applied load set Pd, the lower-bound limit
Boyle, 1989; Seshadri, 1990; Seshadri and Fernando, 1991; load for iteration i, P/,-, is given by the expression
Seshadri, 1991). In the reduced modulus method, elastically
calculated stress is partitioned into primary and secondary (3)
components by comparing the simulated inelastic response of ' si' max
a structure with ideal models of primary and secondary be- where aY is the material yield stress, and asl the maximum
havior. In pressure vessel applications, material inelasticity is (redistributed) stress given in iteration i (Mackenzie et al., 1992,
simulated in an iterative elastic finite element analysis proce- 1993a,b). The best estimate of lower-bound limit load, P/, is
dure by systematically reducing the elastic modulus of highly the highest of the iteration limit loads; that is,
loaded elements so as to allow stress redistribution. Marriott
noted that if the maximum stress calculated in the reduced P, = max(P) (4)
modulus analysis satisfies the yield limit, the stress field sat- Primary Plus Secondary Stress. Neglecting peak stress, the
isfies the lower-bound limit load theorem and the applied load elastic stress field ae calculated in iteration 0 is subject to the
is a lower bound on the limit load of the vessel or component Code shakedown limitation
(Marriott, 1988). Seshadri proposed that elastic and modified
modulus stress fieldsin which the moduli of high-stress ele- '-"max 3o,
ments are reduced and low-stress elements increased-could Primary Stress. The primary stress constituent of ae is sub-
be used to identify statically determinate points in the structure,
ject to specified limits on Pm, PL, (Pm + Pb) and (PL + Pb).
and hence calculate approximate limit loads in a manner similar If the primary stress field cannot be distinguished from the
to reference stress methods in creep analysis. The present writ-secondary stress field, the designer must ensure that the elastic
ers have proposed a third technique for calculating limit loads stress meets the primary stress limit, which may lead to over-
based on the reduced modulus method; in particular, Mar- conservative design. However, the elastic compensation limit
riott's lower bound theorem approach and Seshadri's redis- load stress field can be used to make such a distinction. Each
tribution technique. This method is referred to as the elastic iteration of the elastic compensation procedure gives a stati-
compensation method, and can be used to obtain bounds on cally admissible stress field which can be used in conjunction
both limit and shakedown loads. with the lower-bound limit load theorem to calculate lower-
In the elastic compensation method, approximate failure bound limit loads. However, this stress field also meets the
mechanisms are simulated in an iterative elastic finite elementCode requirements for primary stress (it is an equilibrium stress
analysis by systematically modifying the moduli of elements field), and therefore can be designated as a primary stress field.
so as to cause the stress to redistribute. An initial elastic finite
The maximum primary stress due to an applied load P^ is the
element analysis is performed for an arbitrary load set, say maximum stress in the elastic compensation stress field, I asi I max.
Pd, to establish the elastic stress field. This initial solution is
Clearly, it is advantageous to base the design on the iteration
taken as iteration zero in a series of linear elastic analyses, in
giving the lowest value of lffs,lmax, (that is, the highest lower-
which the elastic modulus of each element is modified ac- bound limit load Vj). Convergence is not an issue as all the
cording to the equation iterations give equilibrium stress distributions; some are simply
better than others.
In a conventional elastic analysis, two limits are defined
(ff(/-i)) for primary stress, depending on the type of primary stress:
where subscript i is the iteration number, a a nominal stress S/max < Sm for general primary membrane stress and
value, and a(,_ i} the maximum (unaveraged) nodal stress as- S7max < 1.5S, for local primary membrane stress or primary
sociated with the element calculated in the previous iteration. membrane plus primary bending stress. In the latter case, the

3 4 0 / V o l . 116, NOVEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 maximum elastically calculated primary stress is allowed to
reach the yield stress (assuming Sm is two-thirds aY), but an
adequate margin of safety (with respect to limit load) is given
by post-yield stress redistribution. By definition, limit load
stresses cannot redistribute to give a lower maximum stress;
therefore, if an elastic compensation stress fieldwhich sim-
ulates the limit stress distributionis defined as the primary
stress field, the entire stress field must be subject to the primary
stress limit of Sm to ensure an adequate margin of safety.
This interpretation of primary stress and the applicable stress
limit is effectively equivalent to the Code design by limit anal-
ysis procedures. The ASME B&PV Code Section VIII Division
2 Appendix 4-136.3 states that the limits on general primary
membrane stress intensity, local primary membrane stress in-
tensity, and primary membrane plus primary bending stress
intensity need not be satisfied at a specific location if the
specified loadings do not exceed two-thirds of the lower-bound
collapse load. If 4-136.3 is applied, the maximum allowable
load, corresponding to primary stress or limit load require-
ments, is
* max ~ - * /
In the elastic compensation procedure, load and stress are
1 as defined in Fig. 3 and Table 1. The material model is linear
t r*1
6-
10
10-
factored proportionally such that when the load is equal to
the limit load P/, the maximum stress is aY. If the stress is
limited to S proportionality gives a maximum allowable load
of
Oy 3
assuming Sm is two-thirds aY. Thus, the assumed (elastic com-
pensation) primary stress field and primary stress limit are
consistent with the B&PV Code.
The limit load calculation may be based on either the Tresca
or the von Mises yield criterion, von Mises giving a higher
load. The use of the less conservative von Mises criterion is
proposed here as the elastic compensation method gives a con-
servative lower bound. (A precedent for using the von Mises
criterion in pressure vessel design is the use of elastic-plastic
finite element analysis, which is usually based on the von Mises
failure surface.)
Sample Problems
The design by analysis procedure described in the foregoing
is illustrated by considering sample analyses of two cylindrical
vessels with flat heads, one "thick" and the other "thin," as
shown in Fig. 2. Two designs are presented for each vessel; a
standard approach based on stress linearization and an alter-
native elastic compensation approach. For the purposes of
linearization, five distinct regions are identified in the vessel,
elasticity, with
2
=30E6psi cry=303psi S, = -aY=20E3 psi K = 0.3

14- All analysis (and stress linearization) was performed using the
'
ANSYS finite element program (Swanson Analysis Systems
Inc., 1992) with eight node axisymmetric solid elements used
throughout.
Fig. 2 Sample vessel dimensions
Stress Linearization Analysis. The stress limits for the five
regions shown in Fig. 3 are explicitly defined in the ASME
B&PV Code and are reproduced in Table 1. Note (2) of Table
NB-3217-1 accounts for the possibility that the plate edge bend-
0 ing moments reduce the bending stress at the center of the
plate. If yielding occurs at the edge of the plate, the moment
constraint is lost and the actual stress at the center of the head
is greater than that calculated by elastic analysis (Cooper,
1973); in effect, the discontinuity bending stress behaves like
a primary stress and is classified Pb.
To apply the stress linearization procedure to the finite ele-
ment models, linearization class lines must be defined. In re-
porting an investigation of the ASME B&PV Code criteria,
Fig. 3 Nominal regions for conventional stress classification Hechmer and Hollinger (1991) made the following recom-

Table 1 Stress categories and limits for regions identified in Fig. 3

Region Description ' Stress categories Stress limits
1 Flat-head, Membrane = primary P <J
center region Bending = primary * in ^m
P,n+Pb= 1-5S,
2 Flat-head junction to Membrane = local primary PL=1.5S
transition Bending = secondary (n) PL + Q{a) = 3S,
or or
Bending = primary Pm + Pb= 1.5S,
3 Head/shell transition Membrane = local primary i \ = 1.5S,
region Bending = secondary PL + Q = 3S,
4 Shell junction to Membrane = local primary PL=l.5S,
transition Bending = secondary PL + Q=3S,
5 Cylindrical shell Membrane = primary p S
Grad thro' wall= secondary * m ^m
P, + Q = 3S,
'"' Note (2) of Table NB-3217-1 states "If the bending moment at the edge is required to maintain the bending stress in the middle to
acceptable limits, the edge bending is classified as Pb. Otherwise, it is classified as Q."

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 341

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 mendations inter alia on the applicability of stress linearization Thick Plate Vessel Analysis. Linear elastic analysis was
at specific regions of pressure vessels: performed for an applied pressure of 1000 psi. The finite ele-
ment mesh and applied boundary conditions are illustrated in
Linearization is "valid" in regions clearly recognized as Fig. 5. The maximum linearized stress intensity, total non-
structural elements; that is, shells of revolutions and circular linearized (primary + secondary + peak) stress intensity, and
plates. Linearization is not "valid" in transition elements, associated maximum permissible pressures Pmax
which normally serve the purpose of connecting discrete 1000 allowable
structural elements, or at sharp junctions in the model which * max or
do not represent the actual geometry. In the case of smooth
junctions, such as fillets or blends, it is recommended that for the five class lines are given in Table 2.
stresses be evaluated in the row of elements adjacent to the The maximum allowable pressure for the thick plate pressure
junction or along the nodal line at the junction. vessel is the smallest calculated maximum for the five regions
considered in the foregoing. Assuming the linearization pro-
For brevity, only five class lines are considered for each cedure is valid throughout the structure, the maximum allow-
geometry, as illustrated in Fig. 4. According to the foregoing able pressure is limited by the stress in the cylindrical shell and
recommendations, class line 3 in Fig. 4 is not valid. In the has a value of Pmax = 7.65 kpsi. However, if linearization is
sample analyses, linearization is applied in all five regions, but, assumed to be invalid in region 3, in the absence of any al-
in addition, allowable pressures are also calculated without ternative categorization techniques, the maximum allowable
applying any categorization technique, in which case the total pressure must be limited by defining the stress in region 3 as
(nonlinearized) elastic stress must be treated as primary; Pm local primary stress, subject to an allowable limit of 1.5Sm.
in regions 1 and 5 and PL in regions 2, 3, and 4. The maximum allowable pressure is therefore limited by the
stress in the transition region, and has a value of Pmax = 5.90
kpsi. Assuming Note (2) of NB-3217-1 to be valid does not
CLASS CLASS
CLASS CLASS CLASS
effect the calculated allowable pressure.
CLASS
LINE 1 LINE 2 LINE 1 LINE 2 LINE 3
LINES

Thin Plate Vessel Analysis. Linear elastic analysis was per-

L" z:::::i:\ formed for an applied pressure of 100 psi. The finite element
\ 1 CLASS 1
mesh and applied boundary conditions are illustrated in Fig.
\ LINE 4 1
t 6. The maximum linearized stress intensity, total nonlinearized
1
CLASS
LINE 4
(primary + secondary + peak) stress intensity and associated
1
1
calculated maximum permissible pressures Pmax
1
1
1
CLASS 1 100 allowable
LINE 5 |
1 CLASS * ITiaX cr T
1 LINE 5
r~~i

for the five class lines are given in Table 3.

Assuming the linearization procedure to be valid throughout
Fig. 4 Linearization class lines the structure, the maximum allowable stress is limited by the

ANSYS 4.4A1
DEC 15 1992
9l35l09
PLOT NO. 1
PREP7 ELEMENTS
TYPE NUM
TDIS
PRES
ZV -1
DIST-8.8
XT -7
YF -8

Fig. 5 Thick-plate vessel finite element model

3 4 2 / V o l . 116, NOVEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 1 ANSYS 4.4A1
DEC 15 1992
10l09l38
PLOT NO. 1
PREP7 ELEMENTS
TYPE NUM
TDIS
PRES
ZV -1
DIST-7.7
XF -7

i!
YF -5

liftffltfUf ~"
*N
1
1
1
1
1
|Y I
a x llailiiyii

Fig. 6 Thin-plate vessel finite element model

Table 2 Thick-plate maximum linearized and total stresses Table 3 Thick-plate maximum linearized and total stresses
Maximum pressure Maximum pressure
Region 5 / (psi) Pmax (PSi) Region SI (psi) P m ax (PSi)
P,= 1368 14620 P, = 492.7 4059
1 P, + P = 3455 8693 1 Pm + P = 5365 559
Total = 3567 5607 Total = 5377 372
P L =1917 15649 P L = 938.8 3196
PL + Q= 2558 23455 P L + 2 = 5705 1052
2 PL + P ? 0 ) = 2558 11728"" 2 P L + P 6 = 5705<0) 526 (a)
Total = 2314 12964 Total = 6283 478
P L = 605 49587 P L = 186.4 16094
3 P i + Q=3246 18484 3 P i + Q = 967.7 6200
Totaf=5088 5896 Total = 5204 576
Pz, = 1582 18963 P L = 202.5 14814
4 P i + 0=3062 19595 4 P i + Q = 757.3 7922
Total = 3185 9419 Total =1459 2056
P m = 2615 7648 P,= 171.1 11689
5 P ra + Q = 3321 18067 5 Pm + Q = 229.0 26201
Total = 3381 5915 Total = 232.8 8591
1 1
If Note (2) of NB-3217-1 valid. If Note (2) of NB-3217-1 is valid.

stress at the center of the plate and has a value of Pmax = 559
psi. This is also true if linearization is assumed invalid in region
3, the transition region. The maximum allowable pressure cal-
culated for the junction is Pmax = 576 psi, which is higher than
that for the middle of the plate. However, the validity of Note
(2) of NB-3217-1 effects the calculated allowable pressure for
thin plate vessel. If the stress at the junction is limited to
(PL + Pb), the maximum allowable pressure is 526 psi. The
maximum stress at the center of a simply supported circular
plate of thickness h and radius a subject to uniform pressure
P is given by
3(3 + y)Pa2
8h2
In this case
3(3 + 0.3) 100 102
= 12375 psi
8 l2
which is greater than the maximum stress at the center of the
head given by the finite element analysis. Therefore, the dis-
continuity bending stress must be considered to be primary
bending stress Pb.
Elastic Compensation Analysis. In the elastic compensa-
tion analyses, stress categorization is circumvented by invoking
the ASME B&PV Code Section VIII Division 2 Appendix 4-
136.3 design by limit analysis rules. The limit load calculations
are based on the von Mises failure criterion. The secondary
stress limits conform to the Code criterion limiting the stress
intensity range to twice yield, based on the Tresca yield cri-
terion.
Thick-Plate Analysis. Applying the elastic compensation
procedure (10 iterations, von Mises failure criterion), to the
thick-plate vessel finite element model shown in Fig. 5, Eqs.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 343

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (3) and (4) give a lower-bound limit pressure of 13.26 kpsi.
Therefore, the maximum allowable pressure according to limit
load (primary stress) requirements is
Pmax = 2/3P,= 8.84kpsi
The first yield pressure (Tresca) Py= 5.87 kpsi; therefore, the
maximum Code allowable pressure satisfying shakedown re-
quirements is
Pmax = 2P y = 11.74 kpsi
The maximum pressure is controlled by primary stress/limit
load requirements and is Pmax = 8.84 kpsi.
Thin-Plate Analysis. Applying the elastic compensation
procedure (10 iterations, von Mises failure criterion), to the
thin-plate vessel finite element model shown in Fig. 6, the
lower-bound limit pressure is 914 psi. Therefore, the maximum
allowable pressure satisfying the limit load (primary stress)
requirements is
Pmax = 2/3P, = 609psi
The first yield pressure (Tresca) PY is 407 psi; therefore, the
maximum allowable pressure satisfying the Code shakedown
(primary plus secondary) requirements is
Pmax=2Py=814psi
Therefore, the maximum pressure is controlled by primary
stress/limit load requirements and is Pmax = 609 psi.
Discussion and Conclusions
The sample analyses presented above demonstrate the use
of the elastic compensation method as a stress categorization
tool. In a conventional design by analysis based on lineari-
zation, the thick-plate vessel allowable pressure Pmax = 7.65
kpsi is controlled by the stress in the cylindrical shell (region
5). However, if, as has been suggested, linearization is not
valid in the transition region between the plate and the shell,
in the absence of an alternative categorization procedure, the
maximum total (nonlinearized) stress in the transition is limited
to the local primary stress limit of l.5S giving an allowable
pressure of Pmax = 5.90 kpsi. (This is clearly an excessively
conservative assumption and unlikely to be made in practice.)
If the proposed elastic compensation approach is used, the
maximum allowable pressure is Pmax = 8.84 kpsi, an improve-
ment of 15 percent over the linearization procedure and a 50-
percent improvement over the worst-case design. The thin-plate
vessel allowable pressure is controlled by the discontinuity
stress at the edge of the flat plate, where stress categories are
clearly definedsubject to assessing the requirements of Note
(2) of Table NB-3217-1and linearization is valid. The allow-
able pressure given by the linearization procedure is Pmax = 526
psi, while the elastic compensation approach gives a slightly
higher pressure of Pmax = 609 psi, a 16-percent increase. This
difference in allowable pressure is due to the limit stress dis-
tributions implicitly assumed in the two procedures. Applying
the lower-bound limit load theorem to the elastic membrane
plus bending type of stress distribution obtained by lineari-
zation gives a lower limit load than the elastic compensation
method, in which the actual (inelastic) limit state stress dis-
tribution is simulated.
The vessels considered in the sample analyses have clearly
defined Code stress categories and the designer is simply re-
quired to partition the elastic stress into membrane and bending
components and apply the Code limits. Such clear guidance
on stress categories is not always available, and often the de-
signer must decide on appropriate stress categories for cal-
culated membrane and bending stresses. By addressing the
primary and' secondary failure modes directly by basing the
design on inelastic analysis and Code guidelines, such as ASME
B&PV Code Section VIII Appendix 4-136, stress categorization
is circumvented, removing the onus on the designer to decide
3 4 4 / V o l . 116, NOVEMBER 1994
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
on stress categories for applications in which unequivocal Code
guidance is not given. This paper has concentrated on using
the elastic compensation method to calculate allowable loads
consistent with the ASME B&PV Code design by analysis rules
for primary stress. The elastic compensation method can be
implemented as an automatic computational procedure for
"off-the-shelf" finite element packages utilizing FORTRAN
programs or software-specific macro routines (as detailed for
ANSYS by Mackenzie et al. (1994)). More complex inelastic
analysis techniques, such as elastic-plastic finite element anal-
ysis, utilize actual material stress-strain relationships and may
result in calculation of higher allowable loads. However, ine-
lastic analysis is more difficult to perform than linear elastic
analysis, requiring specialist software and design staff. The
elastic compensation method offers a simple, robust alternative
to more advanced analysis tools.
Acknowledgment
This research has been funded by a grant from the UK
Science and Engineering Research Council. Use of ANSYS
through an educational license is also acknowledged.
References
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1989, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
ASME, 1969, Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for
Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Division 2, The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
Boyle, J. T., and Spence, J., 1987, " A Procedure for the Assessment of Elastic
Follow-Up in High Temperature Piping Systems," Design and Analysis of Pip-
ing, Pressure Vessels and Components, eds., W. E. Short et al., ASME PVP-
Vol. 120, New York, pp. 197-201.
Boyle, J. T., 1989, "Elastic Follow-Up and the Categorization of Secondary
Stress," Proceedings, ASME PVP-Vol. 161, Honolulu, HI, pp. 47-53.
Calladine, C. R., 1985, Plasticity for Engineers, Ellis Horwood Ltd, Chi-
chester, U.K.
Cooper, W. E., 1973, "An Introduction to the Design Procedures of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code," US-Japan Joint Symposium Pressure
Vessel Technology and Pressure Component Codes, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 22-59.
Dhalla, A. K., 1984, "Verification of an Elastic Procedure to Estimate Follow-
Up," Design of Elevated Temperature Piping, eds., R. H. Mallet and R. M.
Mello, ASME PVP-Vol. 86, New York, NY, pp. 81-96.
Dhalla, A. K., 1987, " A Simplified Procedure to Classify Stresses for Elevated
Temperature Service," Proceedings, ASME PVP-Vol. 120, New York, NY, pp.
177-188.
Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., 1991, "Three-Dimensional Stress Cri-
teria," Proceedings, ASME PVP-Vol. 210-2, San Diego, CA, pp. 181-191.
Mackenzie, D., Shi, J., Nadarajah, C , and Boyle, J. T., 1992, "An Iterative
Elastic Analysis Procedure for Estimating Lower-Bound Limit Loads," Pro-
ceedings, ASME PVP, New Orleans, LA, pp. 129-134.
Mackenzie, D., et al., 1993a, " A Simple Method of Estimating Limit Loads
by Iterative Elastic Analysis I, II, & III," International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 77-142.
Mackenzie, D., Nadarajah, C , Shi, J., and Boyle, J. T., 1993b, "Simple
Bounds on Limit Loads by Elastic Finite Element Analysis," ASME JOURNAL
OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 115, pp. 27-31.
Mackenzie, D., Hamilton, R., and Boyle, J. T., 1994, "Using ANSYS ADPL
Macros to Calculate Limit Loads by Iterative Elastic Finite Element Analysis,"
Proceedings, 6th International ANSYS Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, Vol. 3, pp.
14.31-14.38.
Marriott, D. L., 1988, "Evaluation of Deformation or Load Control of
Stresses Under Inelastic Conditions Using Elastic Finite Element Stress Anal-
ysis," Proceedings, ASME PVP-Vol. 136, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3-9.
Roche, R. L., 1986, "Estimation of Piping Elastic Follow-Up by Using Con-
ventional Computations," International Journal ofPressure Vessels and Piping,
Vol. 26, pp. 53-78.
Seshadri, R., 1990, "Classification of Stresses in Pressure Components Using
the 'GLOSS' Diagram," Proceedings, ASME PVP-Vol. 186, Nashville, TN, pp.
115-123.
Seshadri, R., 1991, "The Generalized Local Stress Strain (GLOSS) Analysis-
Theory and Applications," 25th Anniversary Volume, ASME JOURNAL OF PRES-
SURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, pp. 219-227.
Seshadri, R., and Fernando, C. P. D., 1991, "Limit Loads of Mechanical
Components and Structures Using the GLOSS R-Node Method," Proceedings,
ASME PVP-Vol. 210-2, San Diego, CA, pp. 125-134.
Severud, L. K., 1984, " A Simplified Method Evaluation for Piping Elastic
Follow-Up," Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Pressure Vessel
Technology, ASME, San Francisco, CA, pp, 367-387.
Swanson Analysis Systems Inc., 1992, ANSYS User's Manual for Revision
5.0, Swanson Analysis Systems Inc., PO Box 65, Johnson Road, Houston, PA.
Transactions of the ASME