PLASTIC LIMIT ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE VESSELS WITH DEFECTS

A thesis submitted to THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER as part of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Q . MENG, M.Sc.

Applied Mechanics Division Mechanical Engineering Department The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

MARCH, 1984

(i )

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to his supervisor Dr. M. Robinson for his valuable advice and constant guidance. The author would also like to express his deep thanks to Dr. R. Kitching, Head of the Applied Mechanics Division, for his encouragement and advice whenever consulted. The computations were carried out on the CDC 7600 computer provided by the University of Manchester Regional Computer Centre (UMRCC). Thanks are due to all of the computer staff for their assistance.

(ii)

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that no portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institution of learning.

(iii)

THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

ABSTRACTOF THESIS submitted by ...................MEN.G..............................
for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY and entitled. . Plastic. L.im.it. Ana.1.y.si.s of. .Pr.essur. .......

.Vessels.with. Oefects.............................................................

........................................ Date of submission. . . 13Y'.C.h. 1984

ABSTRACT

The cylinder-cylinder and cylinder-sphere intersections are very important elements in industrial structures. The vessel components are usually welded together and unavoidable defects frequently occur at the junction. The junction as well as the defect present a sharp geometric discontinuity which is very likely to cause fracture under internal pressure. Therefore it is desirable to study the elastic-plastic behaviour of the vessel affected by such a defect. To simplify the analysis, a part-through circumferential crack in the vessel, concentric with the nozzle and located at the intersection is assumed. The investigation consists of the followin9 four aspects: (1) The lower bound theorem of plasticity has been applied to a flush radial cylindrical nozzle in a cylindrical vessel with internal/external crack. A lower bound to the limit pressure has been computed using a nonlinear optimization procedure. The theory is ap p licable for a nozzle whose radius is less than about one third that of the vessel. Results are presented for various depths of crack as well as a limited range of a/R, t/T and Rh without crack. (2) The lower bound theorem of plasticity has also been applied to a spherical vessel with a radial flush/protruding cylindrical nozzle with defect. A stress formulation and the von Mises material yield criterion are employed and hence the method is in general applicable for shells of any thicknesses. The limit pressure is optimized using a nonlinear programming method. (3) A nonlinear finite element program NONSAP is used to study the elasticplastic behaviour of a spherical vessel with a radial flush/protruding cylindrical nozzle and a crack-like defect, which is modelled as a U-notch with varying depth. The behaviour of the vessel is characterized by the pressure-deflection curve obtained at the intersection, and the limit load is determined from this plot. (4) An experiment has been carried out to investigate the elastic-plastic behaviour and failure pressure of a cylinder-sphere vessel containing a circumferential groove of finite width at the intersection. The pressurestrain curves obtained in the groove and other positions were plotted and the results were compared with above theoretical predictions.

(iv) CONTENTS Pages AC KNOWLEDG EME NTS DECLARATION ABSTRACT CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - LITERATURE REVIEW 1 .1 Plastic Limit Analysis 1.1.1 Limit Analysis Applied to Axisymmetric structures 1.1.2 Limit Analysis Applied to Non-axisymmetric structures 1.1.3 Limit Analysis Applied to Shells with Defects 1 .2 Nonlinear Finite Element Method 1.2.1 General (i ) (ii) (iii) (iv) 1 1 1 6 10 14 14 15 17 19 22 22 22 26 28 29 30 32 35 35 36 40 44 45 45 48 49 52 52

1.2.2 Material Nonlinear Only Analysis 1.2.3 Geometrically Nonlinear Analysis 1.2.4 Singularity CHAPTER 2 - GENERAL THEORY AND CONCEPTS 2.1 Plastic Limit Analysis 2.1.1 Yield Conditions 2.1.2 Flow Rule 2.1.3 Limit Load 2.1 .4 Lower-bound Theorem 2.1.5 Upper-bound Theorem 2.2 General Description of Finite Element Method 2.3 Nonlinear Finite Element Method 2.3.1 The Yield Criterion 2.3.2 The Stress-strain Relation and its Matrix Form 2.3.3 General Solution Procedure Figures CHAPTER 3 - PLASTIC LIMIT ANALYSIS OF A CYLINDER-CYLINDER INTERSECTION WITH DEFECT Nomenclature 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Method of Analysis 3.3 Basic Equations 3.3.1 Basic Equations in the Nozzle

(v)

Pages 3.3.2 Basic Equations in the Vessel 3.3.3 Basic Equations in the Crack 3.4 Junction Geometry 3.5 Vector Geometry 3.6 Junction Equilibrium Conditions 3.6.1 The Forces and Moments at the Intersections 3.6.2 The Kirchhoff Boundary Conditions 3.6.3 Junction Equilibrium Inequality 3.7 Static Admissibility in the Rigid Regions 3.8 Results and Discussion Tables Figures CHAPTER 4 - PLASTIC LIMIT ANALYSIS OF A CYLINDER-SPHERE INTERSECTION WITH DEFECT Nomenclature 4.] Introduction 4.2 Method of Analysis 4.3 Basic Equations 4.3.1 Basic Equations in the Sphere 4.3.2 Basic Equations in the Cylinder 4.4 Junction Equilibrium 4.5 Results and Discussion Tables Figures CHAPTER 5 - FINITE ELEMENT METHOD APPLIED TO A CVII ERSPK1EJE INTERSECTION WITH DEFECT 5.1 Introduction 5.2 NONSAP 5.3 Structural Modelling 5.3.1 U-notched Defect 5.3.2 Shell Discretization 5.3.3 Material Properties 5.3.4 Load Curve 58 65 70 71 75 75 77 81 85 86 91 93 103 1 03 105 107 110 110 116 121 125 130 131 136

136 137 1 39 1 39 140 143 144

(vi)

Pages 5.3.5 Boundary Conditions 5.4 Data Preparation Program 5.5 Results and Discussion Tables Figures CHAPTER 6 - EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Specimen 6.3 Test Rig and Instrumentation 6.4 Test Procedure 6.5 Material Properties 6.6 Results and Discussion 6.6.1 Pressure-Strain Curves 6.6.2 Comparison with Theoretical Predictions Table Figures CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK 7.1 Conclusions 7.2 Suggestions for Further Work REFERENCES Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Carroll's Optimization Procedure Program NONMESH Derivation of Strains from Displacement Field 1 46 148 151 155 156 163 163 164 166 168 169 170 170 173 179 180 193 193 195 199 210 212 221

CHAPTER ONE

1 CHAPTER ONE LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 PLASTIC LIMIT ANALYSIS 1 .1 .1 The theory of plastic limit analysis was first applied to continuous media by Drucker, Prager and Greenberg (1) in 1952. Since then the theory and application of limit analysis has been rapidly developed. Hopkins and Prager (2) carried out the study of the loading capacities of circular plates by using the Tresca yield criterion. Drucker (3) applied the theory of limit analysis to axisymmetrically loaded cylindrical shells. Paul (4) derived the collapse loads for rigidplastic rings of arbitrary cross section subject to uniform twisting moments and radial forces along the circumference. By 1960 the theory of limit analysis was already at a relatively well developed stage. Based on the developments of both theory and application for various fields, Hodge (5) in 1963 published a comprehensive monograph in which the theorems of limit analysis, the various yield surfaces and applications to rotationally symmetric plates and shells were summarized up to that time. Some successful attempts were'made to solve the problem of pressure vessels under internal pressure. Drucker and Shield (6) suggested a one-moment limited interaction yield surface for a rotationally symmetric shell. The yield surface was an approximation to the Tresca yield condition in which the hoop moment m 0 was completely ignored. In addition, they assumed that the interaction between the bending moment and membrane stress resultants was little and not taken into account. The resulting yield surface was given by In 0 - nI . 1, 1n 3
1

. 1,

nI < 1 and Imj < 1. Gill (7) in 1964 calculated the upper and

lower bounds to the limit pressure for a flush cylindrical nozzle in a spherical vessel using a simple hexagonal prism yield surface for the stress resultants N 0 , N and moment M. M 0 is not included in the yield condition. The yield surface circumscribes the actual yield surface for a cylinder made of material which obeys the Tresca yield criterion. Although approximations were made the results were quite reasonable. Dinno and Gill (8) considered the effects of the circumferential bending moment and change of circumferential curvature

on the calculation of the limit pressure of symmetrically loaded shells of revolution. They used the one-moment limited interaction yield surface by putting M 0 equal to zero. This assumption led to a lower bound for the two-moment yield surface. The analysis obtained by putting equal to and using the same yield surface gave a lower bound to

the limit pressure. Ellyin (9) obtained a solution for the cylindersphere intersecting shell subject to internal pressure. The calculation was based on the uniform Tresca yield surface which is nonlinear. Comparison with other linearized surfaces showed that the limited interaction yield surface is not a good approximation for some geometries, e.g. small sphere-cylinder diameter ratios, or thin shell where wall thickness-diameter ratio is small. Experimental results gave a good evidence to support the conclusions. Dinno and Gill (10) in 1965 calculated the lower and upper bounds to the limit pressures for a protruding cylindrical nozzle in a spherical pressure iessel. The analysis was based on seven possible collapse mechanism configurations involving the sphere, the external and internal part of the branch. A comprehensive study of the effect of a wide range of the dimensional parameters, especially the length of the internal protrusion of the

branch was made. Lower bounds to the limit pressure were first calculated for different mechanisms by using the one-moment limited interaction yield surface. Upper bounds were then obtained using the hinge circle positions found from the lower bound analysis. As with the previous paper (ref. 8) work done by M 0 was omitted. Results showed that the limit pressure for a protruding nozzle in a sphere was higher than that for a flush nozzle. In order to verify the predictions of limit analysis, experimental work is required to compare with the theoretical results. Dinno and Gill (11) carried out six tests on spherical pressure vessels with flush nozzles welded into the spheres. Each specimen was pressurized with water beyond the elastic limit. Displacements and strains in both nozzle and vessel were measured. The experimental results were less than twenty percent higher than theoretical results. The error might be due to (1) Effect of strain hardening. (2) Effect of change of geometry and (3) The assumption made in the theoretical analysis that a plastic hinge circle forms at the intersection of the centre lines of the branch and sphere wall thicknesses is not possible in practice. Plastic deformation tests were also performed by Ellyin (12). Each specimen consisted of a hemispherical shell with a central cut-out to which a radial cylindrical nozzle was welded by mannal shielded metal arc. The strain gauges were mounted along a meridional plane to measure the meridional and circumferential strains. Dial gauges were positioned on an orthogonal meridian to check the symmetry of deformation. A dial gauge was placed at the centre of the end closure to measure the vertical displacement. A photoelastic coating was painted on the model to give an overall qualitative picture of the strain distribution over the whole

shell intersection. The experimental results agreed fairly well with the theoretical predictions. Dinno and Gill (13) calculated the lower and upper bounds to the limit pressure for pressure vessels consisting of the junction of a cylindrical and spherical shell. A whole range of parameters was investigated from the case of a cylindrical nozzle in a spherical vessel to the case of a cylindrical vessel with hemispherical ends. Lower bounds to the limit pressure were first calculated using the one moment limited interaction yield surface. Upper bounds were then calculated using the hinge circle positions determined from the lower bound analysis. In the lower bound analysis M 0 was put equal to in the

equilibrium equations, in the sphere and in upper bound analysis the work done by M 0 on the change of the circumferential curvature was ignored. Again strain hardening and the effect of change of geometry on the collapse pressure were not considered. In the middle of the 1960's, the development of computation techniques provided many very useful numerical methods such as linear and nonlinear programming which made a considerable progress in the field of limit analysis. Dinno (14) computed a lower bound limit pressure of thick spherical shell with a radial cylindrical nozzle. The analysis considered a three-dimensional stress formulation by means of stresses rather than stress resultants. Some of the stresses were expressed in assumed plastic regions in terms of an independent set of variables and the remaining stresses were derived from equilibrium and boundary conditions. The von Mises yield condition was used rather than a derived appropriate yield surface expressed by stress resultants. A nonlinear optimisation procedure i.e. the Sequential Unconstrained Minimization

Technique due to Carroll (15) was adopted to find the optimal load. One of the applications of the limit analysis theorems is to find the required reinforcements of various pressure vessels, especially in the vicinity of openings and intersections which usually are the weakest parts of the vessels. Calladine (16) carried out an investigation by using the limit design method for reinforcement of openings in thin spherical vessels. After analysing the structural behaviour due to reinforcement of various thicknesses and shapes he concluded that the conical-pad reinforcement provided a more rational design. Hodge (17) obtained the lower and upper bounds on the design of a pierced cylindrical shell reinforced by a plane annular ring. Ruiz and Chukwujekwu (18) applied the theory of limit analysis to the design of ring-reinforced branches in spherical and cylindrical vessels. The ring had an approximately rectangular cross-section located at the junction of radial nozzle and vessel. The ring was designed in such a way that it fails at the same pressure as both vessel and nozzle. McIntyre, Ashton and Gill (19) obtained the limit pressure for spherical vessel with flush radial nozzle with reinforcement provided by a pad welded on to the outside surface of the sphere. Based on the analysis in reference (19). Ashton et al (20) presented a series of curves which were useful for design of reinforcement pads. To prove the theoretical predictions an experimental investigation was conducted by Mathieson (21) on three pad reinforced spherical vessels with radial nozzles. Yeo and Robinson (22) analysed the integrally reinforced flush radial nozzle in spherical vessel by minimising the reinforcement volume required to satisfy limit pressure design criterion. The lower bound to the limit pressure was obtained by using an optimisation routine. The method of plastic design

has many advantages such as the accurate estimate of the collapse load, simplicity of application, and economy of structure. A comprehensive book including the general theory and applications to plates, shells and disks was written by Save and Massonnet (23) in 1972. A minimumweight design method was presented in that book which gives valuable informations on the maximum saving in material that can be achieved. The method can also be applied for the design of minimum weight of reinforcements of various structures. In applying the method, the plastic limit analysis is one of the design criteria.

1.1.2 In the 1970's, the problems with rotationally symmetric pressure vessels could be solved with reasonable accuracy by the theory of limit analysis. Non-axisymmetric problems still presented formidable difficulties. Robinson and Gill (24) in 1972 computed a lower bound to the limit pressure of a flash oblique cylindrical branch in a spherical pressure vessel by using a nonlinear programming method. The yield condition used was one proposed by Ilyushin and the stress resultants were expressed in terms of an independent set of variables. Equilibrium at the junction of the nozzle and sphere was satisfied approximately by using an overall inequality constraint. The pressure was then optimised subject to the yield and equilibrium constraints. Using the method mentioned above, a very comprehensive parametric survey was carried out by Robinson and Gill (25) and the results were presented in graphical form. The values of the lower bound limit pressure may be used as the basis of a rational design procedure which was proposed by Robinson and Gill (26). In

association with the theoretical work, Robinson, Kirk and Gill (27) conducted experiments on spherical vessels with radial and oblique flush nozzles. Particular attention was concentrated on investigating the effect of angle of obliquity on the limit pressure and also on the extent of the plastic zone and deformation pattern. The strains, deflections and rotations of the nozzle were measured. The experimental limit pressure was defined using the curves of pressure against the highest measured hoop strain in the sphere. It was defined as the pressure to produce a permanent plastic strain of 0.2 per cent. An alternative definition of the limit pressure using the intersection of the elastic line and the tangent to the plastic deformation portion of the curves led to unreliable values since the plastic portion of the curve was nowhere straight. The results showed that for large angle of obliqijity the yielding was very localized and the hoop strain was significant compared with the other-strains. The limit pressure was lower than the radial nozzle with the equivalent dimensions. Another non-axisymmetric problem is of two intersecting cylindrical shells under internal pressure. Ellyin and Turkkan (28) obtained the lower bound to the limit pressure of a cylinder-cylinder pressure vessel using nonlinear programming. They assumed the stress distribution had a fixed number of terms in the series expansion. In their analysis, the equilibrium across the zones employed was not properly satisfied. This discrepancy was caused by different pressures used in each zone. Erbatur (29) attempted to develop a general lower bound analysis valid for both radial and oblique nozzles. But due to the limitation of computer storage the results obtained were rather low. A lower bound for the right cylinder-cylinder intersection was computed by Biron and

Coorchesne (30). The geometrical configuration is sub-divided into zones and relatively simple expressions were used for a few stress functions in each zone to define the stress field. The yield condition selected was the Ilyushin approximation to the von Mises criterion. The nonlinear programming method was used to maximise the value of the internal pressure with the constraints (a) the yield was not violated at arbitrarily fixed points and (b) the equilibrium condition at the junction was satisfied at a large number of points. Results would be improved with large number of zones using rapid and more powerful computers. As a better alternative, Robinson (31) solved the same problem using series expressions. For both nozzle and vessel, some stress resultants were prescribed by polynomials and harmonics. The remaining stress resultants could be obtained from the equilibrium equations. The junction equilibrium was satisfied by using the Kirchhoff equations which were realised by an inequality to provide an overall approximation to the forces and moments at the intersection. Similarly, the method can be applied for cylinder-sphere intersection. Carroll's nonlinear optimization programming was used to maximise the internal pressure. The results obtained were very satisfactory for a ratio of nozzle to vessel radius of less than 0.6. A wide parametric survey was carried out using the nonlinear programming. The results were presented in reference (32). Robinson (33) made some comments on limit loads of a cylinder with a flush radial cylindrical nozzle under internal pressure. Comparison was made between the theoretical analysis by Robinson (32) and other analysts. Experimental results which had been published were compared with the theoretical-predictions including both lower and upper bound analyses. Some apparent inconsistency was found and explained to

some extent. The discrepancy was possibly due to (1) The criterion used to determine the limit loads from experimental pressure deflection/strain curves, (2) The effect of change of geometry and (3) The experimental stress-strain curves are affected by the initial residual stresses whereas the theoretical limit pressure is independent of such stresses. In the lower bound limit analysis of cylinder-cylinder intersection, Srinivasaiah and Schroeder (34) used three-dimensional stress fields expanded in series instead of the stress resultants. The stresses were defined at every point of the shells and of the intersection which satisfy the equilibrium equations automatically. Continuity across the surface of intersection was satisfied using a combination of the power series method and the point collocation least square method. The von Mises yield criterion was checked at closely spaced points throughout the volume of the vessel. The theoretical limit pressures were slightly lower than the associated experimental results. For upper bound limit analysis, Cloud and Rodabaugh (35) analyzed a radial nozzle in cylindrical shell with diameter ratio less than or equal to 0.5. In their analysis, a plastic collapse was postulated to occur by four possible mechanisms. They also assumed that the tangential strain rates were maximum principal strain rates and the two-moment limited interaction yield surface was used. Due to some rather severe simplifications e.g. several terms were omitted from the equations, the results might not be true upper bounds to the limit pressure. Experimental investigations of the behaviour beyond the elastic limit of pressure vessels were made by Cottam and Gill (36). The specimens were mild steel cylindrical vessels with flush nozzles welded at the junctions. The limit pressure was obtained on the basis of

- 10

pressure-pumped water volume and pressure-branch end displacement curves which characterized the gross behaviour of the structure. There was no previous theoretical analysis available to compare with the experimental results. Calladine and Goodall (37) conducted four tests on thin cylindrical vessels with cutouts and two vessels with radial branches. Distortion of the cutouts and the region of plastic hoop strain at the vicinity of intersection were investigated. The limit pressures were defined from the pressure-deflection curves and compared with the theoretical values of lower bound analysis. In cylinder-cylinder intersections the branch itself made an important contribution to the limit pressure. The strength due to the geometry effect was dependent strongly on the radius-thickness ratio of the branch.
I'

suggestion was

made for taking into account the cross-sectional area at the junction weld. Biron (38) in 1977 presented a paper to review some of the work concerned with the lower bound computation of the collapse load of pressure vessel intersections. He concluded that for rotationally symmetric problems, all requirements of the lower bound theorem are satisfied and the results are true lower bounds. For nonsymmetric problem, e.g. a right cylinder-cylinder intersection, the continuity conditions between two cylinders and the six equations of equilibrium for each vessel are difficult to be satisfied. Some approximations must be made. In view of the complexity of a nonsymmetric problem, the approach by Robinson (31,32) for right cylinder-cylinder intersection appears to be sound.

1 .1 .3 LiniitA1is21iedtoe11swithDef! To assess the possible failure load under internal pressure of a

11

shell having a defect in its wall, it is necessary to obtain both a linear elastic fracture solution and a plastic limit analysis of the structure. Bowling and Townley (39) have proposed the two-criteria approach. One of these is based on linear fracture mechanics which may be applied to predict brittle failure. The other is based on the plastic limit analysis theorems to estimate a lower and/or upper bound to the limit pressure required to cause wide spread yielding in a vessel with a defect. As a preliminary to a study of the problem, Coon, Gill and Kitching (40) derived a lower bound to the limit pressure of a cylindrical vessel with an unreinforced circular hole. At the time their paper was published there was no fully satisfactory theoretical analysis, either elastic or plastic, of a branch in a cylindrical pressure vessel. Therefore the lower bound solutions were desircibe for design purposes.

Their analysis was simplified by assuming the principal directions to be in the longitudinal and circumferential directions of the cylinder. This also made it possible to use the two-moment limited interaction yield surface. Experimental results showed that the lower bound solutions were quite reasonable answers. Kitching, Davis and Gill (41) conducted the lower bound limit analysis and experimental investigations to determine the collapse pressures for cylindrical shells with reinforced openings including circles, squares, rectangles and ellipses. Specimens of different shapes expressed by non-dimensional parameters were found to behave similarly and to have closely related limit pressures. The results of the analysis and experimental work have implications concerning cylindrical shells intersected by oblique cylindrical branches. Ruiz (42) gave a simple limit analysis of cylindrical shells with part-through longitudinal notch or through-

12

thickness longitudinal slit. The failure model assumed was that collapse was due to the limit load required to cause large zone yielding of the shell with a flaw oflimitedlength. The limit analysis provided a failure criterion for the assessment of the severity of defects in vessels made of ductile material. Kitching and Zarrabi (43) carried out the theoretical analysis and experimental work for internal pressure applied to a cylindrical shell with a rectangular slot part through the thickness at mid-length. The sides of the slot were axial and circumferential. The slot might be taken as a representative of a crack for some of the geometric proportions. The lower bound to the limit pressure of such a vessel was computed by using a linear optimization technique. The analysis was simplified by assuming the principal directions to be in the longitudinal and circumferential directions of the cylinder. The fact that the mid-surface of the shell in slot region was offset from the mid-surface of the surrounding thicker shell was ignored. The two-moment limited interaction yield surface was used in the analysis. Experimental works were carried out by Zarrabi (44) on aluminium alloy cylindrical shells with different combinations of radius, shell thickness, ligament thickness and slot geometry to estimate plastic limit pressures. Comparison with computed lower bound pressures showed a fairly good agreement. Recently, Goodall and Griffiths (45) obtained a theoretical limit solution of a spherical shell with a fully circumferential partial penetration defect. They found that for deep cracks in such shell structures the influence of the transverse shear stress on the final solution is no longer negligible. In order to prove the theory, four

13

hemispherical specimens were tested and the crack opening displacement was measured using displacement transducers. The limit pressure was obtained from the load-displacement curve. Comparison showed that the theoretical value of the limit pressure provided an accurate prediction of failure by ductile mechanisms. Goodall and Miller (46) in 1981 investigated the effect of a partial penetration defect on the collapse load of a spherical pressure vessel with a protruding nozzle. A lower bound to the limit pressure was calculated for defects of different depths around the intersection of the sphere and cylinder. Results were represented by three straight line sections depending on the depth of the defect. For a deep crack, the collapse load was completely determined by the yield constraint at the crack. For a shallow crack, the effect of the crack was insensitive and failure mainly depended on the behaviour of the whole structure. For more general geometry, e.g. a sphere with a protruding nozzle and a part through thickness defect, concentric with the nozzle but at a greater radius, Miller (47) calculated a lower bound pressure using a linear programming method. The Shallow Shell equilibrium equations were used as only the portion of the vessel near the intersection was of interest. The yield criterion at the defect was two quadratic elliptical surfaces which were linearised by inscribed linear segments before the linear programming could be used. The limit pressures calculated were compared with the analytical lower bound obtained by Goodall and Miller (46). Miller (48) calculated an upper bound to the limit pressure of a sphere with a protruding nozzle, with a circumferential partial penetration defect in the sphere running round the junction of the sphere and nozzle. Four possible kinematic failure mechanisms which were

14

represented by several plastic hinge circles were considered. The upper bound solutions were obtained by varying the hingle circle positions in both the sphere and cylinder for different defect ligament thicknesses. The two-moment limited interaction yield surface which circumscribes the Tresca yield surface was used. So the upper bounds calculated were also upper bounds for the exact Tresca yield surface. Comparison with the lower bound obtained by Goodall and Miller (46) showed that the upper bound exceeds the lower bound by 13 per cent for internal defects, and by 18 per cent for shallow external defects.

1.2 NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 1.2.1. General A very effective discretization technique has proved to be the finite element method. This method has been extensively applied for the accurate solution of a variety of industrial problems. The advantage of it is due to the fact that a complex structure can be discretized into small elements that are easily implemented in a computer procedure. For linear analysis, there is no doubt that this method is a mo^t powerful technique which has been widely employed in practical design. In order to increase the safety and reduce the cost of a structure, it is necessary to analyze the system response as the elastic limit is exceeded. The nonlinearities of the system may arise from nonlinear material properties, large strains and large displacements. The endeavour to perform nonlinear analysis has been carried out in the past ten years. But the development of an effective and flexible nonlinear finite element analysis program is still a formidable task. A great deal of research work including the proper formulation of the nonlinear

15

problem, the efficient numerical techniques and associated computer hardware and software is required. However, it is believed that the finite element method applied to general three dimn.sional problems with large geometrical and material nonlinearities will be performed more successfully in future. For general study of the finite element method, a comprehensive book by Zienkiewicz (49) presents a broad interpretation of the method and its application to various field problems. An introductory book by Gallagher (50) presents the preliminary knowledge and the basic formulation in a systematic manner. A textbook by Owen and Hinton (51) describes in detail the general theory and application of the finite element method to the solution of materially nonlinear problems. More attention has been focused on the computer implementation of nonlinear finite element schemes. This book is not only concerned ' with elastoplastic static problems but is also extended to transient dynamic analysis. Further aspects of nonlinear analysis such as elastoviscoplasticity and the geometrically nonlinear problem are also discussed in some extent.

1 .2.2. The nonlinearities arise from two cfistinctsources: material nonlinearities and geometric nonlinearieties. First of all the literature concerned with the material nonlinearities is outlined. Yamada et al (52) proposed a quite simple method to solve the elastic-plastic problems by means of the finite element approach. A plastic stress-strain matrix [D o ] is derived by inverting the PrandtlReuss equations in plasticity. The matrix [0P] is so simple and the only

16

requisite is to replace the elastic stress-strain matrix [De] by the corresponding plastic matrix [D r ] provided that the load steps are selected sufficiently small to just cause yield in the successive elements. To illustrate the approach, a V-notched tension specimen with a notch depth to half-width ratio of 1 to 2 was computed. The material is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic. The load-deflection curve and the development of the plastic zone caused by different load steps are presented. As an early application of the nonlinear finite element approach, a torispherical pressure vessel was computed by Zudans (53) using incremental elastic-plastic analysis. Effect of strain hardening, both isotropic and kinematic, are considered. The curve which represents the pressure versus normal displacement at apex is plotted and compared with the results obtained by other people. Other sample problems, e.g. a simply supported radial plate buckling into axisymmetric mode, and a built-in radial plate buckling to cause a complete plastic hinge at the built-in end as the radial load equal to the critical value were studied. Nayak and Zienkiewicz (54) discussed several iterative processes for solving material nonlinear only problems. Various constitutive relations for materials, such as metals, concrete, soil and laminated composite materials have been proposed. The strain hardening material behaviour as well as strain softening was described and incorporated in one computer program. They found that the isoparametric element is more efficient in elasto-plastic analysis than simple elements. As an fliustrative example, a spherical vessel with a radial cylindrical nozzle was solved using the nonlinear finite element method. The vessel is represented by fifty three isoparametric elements. Thirty elements are

17

localized in the region near the intersection which is obviously the plastic zone due to stress concentration factor. No strain hardening and geometric effect were considered. Vertical deflection of a point at the intersection with increasing pressure was calculated and successfully compared with the experimental results obtained by Dinno and Gill (11). Bcklund and Wennerstrm (55) developed a flat triangular element, which was originally used for linear elastic shells, in the analysis of elasto-plastic shells with small displacements and monotonically increasing static loads. The material is assumed to be isotropic, following the von Mises yield condition and the Prandtl-Reuss flow rule. A combined step-by-step and iteration procedure for tracing the postelastic behaviour of general thin shells was studied.

1 . 2.3 The first work to apply the finite element procedure to geometrically nonlinear structures was reported by Turner et al (56). A linearized incremental analysis was described and tangent stiffness matrices presented for a stringer and a triangular membrane element. Bending was not considered. Gallagher and Padlog (57) outlined a consistent procedure, based on the principle of Minimum Potential Energy, for introducing geometric nonlinearity in the finite element displacement method. Gallagher et al (58) employed a flat quadrilateral element to describe the linear buckling of arbitrary thin shells. Schmit et al (59) have developed geometrically nonlinear rectangular plate and cylindrical shell elements. The solution procedure involves applying a direct search technique to the potential energy function. Brebbia and

18

Connor (60) derived a consistent finite element displacement formulation applicable to arbitrary plate and shallow shell elements. The NewtonRaphson iteration method is employed rather than a direct search technique. Examples illustrating the application to a plate, a shallow cylindrical shell and a shallow hyperbolic paraboloid are presented. An incremental and piecewise linear finite element theory was developed by Hibbitt, Marcal and Rice (61) for large displacement and large strain problems. The resulting equations are in a similar form to those previously developed for large displacement, small strain problems. The only additional term is an initial load stiffness matrix which is dependent on current loads. Geometric nonlinear effects due to large displacements and rotations of various axisymmetric solids subjected to axisymmetric static loads was considered by Hartzman (62). Two configurations, i.e. the configuration at the beginning of a load increment and that at the end of the load increment are involved in the analysis. The geometry is updated immediately after the stresses and the strains are calculated at the end of each load increment. The external nodal forces are related to the surface tractions which act in the current configuration. A transformation or load correction must therefore be performed as the geometry is periodically updated. Two numerical examples, i.e. a thick cylinder under internal pressure and a spherical dome, were computed and compared with experimental results. Tottenham and Barony (63) derived a mixed finite element formulation for the geometrically nonlinear analysis of shells of revolution using a finite element model of a curved rotational shell type. Good results were achieved in comparison to the analytical solution. Recently, Cook (64) considered the nonlinear

19

geometric effects on symmetrically loaded shells of revolution under incremental loads. The iteration technique is employed for equilibrium. In the analysis the shell model allows for large strains, large rotations and shear deformation. Three nonlinear examples demonstrate the accuracy and versatility of this method.

1.2.4 A difficulty with elasto-plastic problems involving a crack is that of geometrical singularity. The elasto-plastic stress field in the vicinity of the crack tip and a criterion for propagation of the crack must be determined in some way. For linear elastic fracture problems crack advance can be governed by specifying a critical value of a quantity, K, termed the stress intensity factor (65). For elasto-plastic fracture problems the criterion which is often used at present is the so-called 3 contour integral (66). They are functions only of geometry and loading conditions. One of the difficulties of numerical solution is the prediction of the stress and displacement field surrounding the crack tip. The common finite element method can produce serious errors when modelling singularities with a limited number of degrees of freedom, and the cost of a very fine mesh near the crack tip can become unacceptable, especially for three-dimensional problems. It is desirable to obtain satisfactory representation of the crack tip singularity. An attempt was made by Chan et al (67) who used very fine element mesh around the tip of the crack. It is expensive in computer time to use these refined meshes. The accuracy obtained is not adequate due to the limitation of the computer storage.

20

Fortunately, extremely fine meshes in the crack tip region can be overcome by the use of special elements. It is well known that the form of the singularity for linear elastic fracture mechanics is unique and this makes it possible to incorporate the effects of the singularity into the finite element formulation. Tracey (68) developed special elements in the region of the crack tip. The cracked configuration is divided into triangular singularity elements around the crack tip with adjoining trapezoidal shaped isoparametric elements. Stress intensity factors were obtained within 5 per cent of accepted values. Henshell and Shaw (69) derived the crack tip stress intensities by using absolutely standard eight-noded isoparametric elements with mid-side nodes displaced 1/4 of the side length away from their normal positions. This element nay represent the crack tip singularity '.iithout any special shape function or numerical integration formulae. They concluded that special finite elements for crack tips are not necessary in plane stress and plane strain analysis. The whole structure can be analysed using ordinary elements with a quite accurate solution. Fawkes, Owen and Luxmoore (70) developed various singularity function elements to assess their performance in the solution of standard fracture test problems. The elements based on the use of distorted shape functions, standard shape functions, analytical solutions, a superposition process and a hybrid technique were considered. The standard test geometries include Mode I edge crack openings in uniaxial and pure bending, and Mode II edge cracks in pure shear. A combination of Mode I and Mode II was obtained from an inclined crack in a uniaxial stress field. The results obtained by using different singularity elements have been compared with the analytical results by Rooke and Cartviright (71) which

21

appear to be the most accurate answers available. A close study of all of the elements showed that only the analytical element produce similar results to the reference values. The analytical approach represents the full crack affected zone, not just the crack tip singularity. This approach may probably be the most effective method to solve complex crack problems.

CHAPTER TWO

22

CHAPTER
GENERAL

TWO

THEORY

AND

CONCEPTS

2.1 PLASTIC LIMIT ANALYSIS 2.1.1. Yield Conditions For most ductile isotropic materials the yield condition may be approximated by either the von r4ises criterion or the Tresca criterion. The von Mises yield criterion is expressed by normal stresses a 1 , a 22 , a 33 and shear stresses 0 l2 0 13, 023 as follows:

(1-)(c-

3 )t t(

3-

1 )^

2
3

where

is the yield stress in simple tension or compression. The

von Mises condition is also known as the maximum octahedral stress criterion or the maximum distortion energy criterion. The Tresca yield criterion is a good approximation to most practical problems. It is written in terms of the principal stresses as
a,

a and a

max(t01cf3(,10-0

1, 10 2 -d 3 1) =0,

which is also known as the maximum shear stress criterion. These two yield criteria are based on the assumptions that the material is fully isotropic, no plastic deformation occurs due to hydrostatic stresses, and the effect of the sense of normal stresses is ignored. The yield surface of the von fuses criterion is a circular cylinder of radius /(2/3) a with its axis along the hydrostatic axis.

23

The Tresca criterion is the inscribed hexagonal cylinder. Hence the predictions of the two criteria do not agree everywhere, and the maximum difference is about 15.5%. The Tresca criterion is often used when the principal directions are known and fixed since it gives simple mathematical manipulations. For a rotationally symmetric shell, the principal axes correspond with the meridional and hoop directions and the Tresca yield criterion is simple to use. Neglecting the transverse normal stress it becomes

max(I

C-c

I. Icr 1,1 CI =G..

The above yield criteria can be applied to any point of a structure under loading since the yield functions are expressed by stresses. For a thin shell, it is convenient to construct a yield surface in terms of the stress resultants and bending moments rather than the stresses themselves. This follows from the fact that every fibre of the yield sections is at yield when collapse occurs. It implies that the strain rates are not equal to zero except at neutral axis. According to the normality rule (see Fig. 2.1), a point where the strain rates are not equal to zero must be on the yield surface. Onat and Prager (72) firstly derived a yield surface by means of the stress resultants and bending moments. Three parameters are introduced e l es, el+e.) so that p and in which , and q = - -i-'- , r = 1 4K 1 4K2 4(K1+K2) K1 and K2 are dimensionless strain rates and curvature rates respectively. The derivation is based on the Tresca yield surface. If point in the shell are known then and at any

will be determined by

24

normality. Integrating across the shell cross-section gives the direct stress resultants and bending moments. The final yield surface is rather complex and not presented here. Gill (73) derived in detail a yield surface for a cylinder which is a good example to illustrate the above idea. The von Mises yield criterion for a rotationally symmetric shell is more complicated than the Tresca yield conditions. Hodge (74) solved the problem in a similar manner to the above. The stress resultants are also given in a parametric form and the results are very difficult to apply. For practical purposes some simplifications need to be made. Drucker and Shield (6) suggested a one-moment limited interaction yield surface which is based on the assumption that in most ratationally symmetric problems the bending moment M

in the hoop direction can be

ignored while the moment M in the meridional direction is retained to satisfy the boundary conditions. The effect of interaction between M and the direct stresses is not taken into account. Thus the yield surface can be expressed by

For a shell of thickness T, the dimensionless stress resultants and bending moments are defined that

nN/T ) m=4M/ 0T 2

e)

Hodge (75) improved the above idea and proposed a two-moment limited interaction yield surface which is applicable for all rotationally

25

symmetric structures no matter whether the direct stresses or the bending moments predominate. Interaction between stresses and moments is also neglected. The two-moment limited interaction yield surface is linear in a four dimensional space defined by twelve planes, that is in9

k1 , irLI:1 , In 9 n9l.1

Im 0 l1 , Irni1 , ImQm?Il
which are shown in Fig. 2.2. If m 0 = 0 or m 0 the two yield criteria mentioned above will agree. For more general application, Ilyushin (76) derived two yield surfaces which are valid for both symmetric and non-symmetric shells. Ilyushin firstly defined three fundamental quadratics, they are

Qt

flh1-flflIflLt3fl
2. 1.

Q m =m + m-rnImL3rnl

= n 1 m,-n 1 m 1 --j - n 2yn 1

-i- nm i- n, ni

in which the suffix 1 and 2 denote the coordinates in a particular problem, e.g. 1 = e, 2 = define the dimensionless stress resultants

in a spherical vessel. The yield surfaces derived by Ilyushin are

Note that the twist stress resultant n 12 and moment m 12 which occurs in non-symmetric problems are included. Based on the above three fundamental quadratics, various approximations

26

of the yield surface have been derived. Since the manipulations are very complicated, only the final results are presented as follows:

Qtfm
Q+Qm+Zt For details see the published paper by Robinson (77). In some cases, the transverse shear stresses are not negligible. Shapiro (78) proposed a yield surface to take account of the effect of the transverse shear forces on the yield condition. However, in general it is very complicated and a simple modification by defining a new quadratic Q q = 3q + 3q was suggested by Robinson (77). It was

proposed that the yield surface may be modified by simply adding Qq to although it would not be strictly accurate. Robinson (79) examined the effect of transverse shear stresses on the yield surface for thin shells. A new function was proposed which is accurate to within about plus or minus 2 percent in all cases, i.e.

Qtci-4Qm-

-Ra1-Q

2.

Q- QmJ O.4- Qm

H
2.1.2 Flow Rule When a stress point is on the yield surface, plastic flow can take place and the flow rule of plasticity relates the increment of plastic strain with the current stresses, or rather stress deviators.

27

d2 =S?\
where 6A is a non-negative number. If plastic straining takes place > 0, otherwise 6A = 0. The above equation is sometimes written

tf.j

where . denotes the strain rate. Note that the above equations imply that the strain increment is normal to the yield surface. Before we proceed to discuss the flow rule for various situations, let Q be a system of generalized stresses, the yield surface can then be expressed by f(Q) = 1. Considering a structure made of rigid-perfectly plastic material, it will be rigid whenever f < 1. It may flow plastically under a certain condition if f = 1. In any case, the stress state for which f > 1 is not tolerated. The generalized stresses Q may be taken as a vector from the origin to a point on or within the yield surface f = 1. Let be the vector

which represents the strain rate states with respect to Q, q is then taken to originate at the end point of Q. A schematic diagram which shows the ield surface and a set of vectors Q and is presented in Fig. 2.1.

Hodge (5) summarized the theory and gave the following conclusions. (1) The surface f = 1 is convex. (2) If Q is interior to f = 1, (3) If Q is to a point on f = 1 with a unique normal, is in the = 0

outward direction of that normal. (4) If Q is to a point on f = 1 without a unique normal, is such that it makes an angle equal to or greater

than 900 with every vector from the end point of Q to any point on or

28

in f = 1. (5) Q cannot extend outside f = 1.

2.1.3 Limit Load A structure made of rigid-perfectly plastic material is assumed to be subjected to an increasing load p. If p is sufficiently small the stresses will satisfy f < 1 throughout the structure so that the strains will be everywhere zero. For small values of p, the stresses are indeterminate in theory since the structure is assumed to be rigid. However, we may define that the stress state is the same as that for an elastic structure following Hooke's law. As the load p is slowly increased, one or more points of the structure will reach the yield surface f = 1. As the load increases further there will be one or several regions where f = 1. But the surrounding material is still rigid and cQnstrains the yielding regions. At this stage, the constraint may be sufficient to keep the whole structure undeformed. As p is increased to relatively higher levels, the regions at yield will continue to grow until eventually the rigid regions become insufficient to restrain the plastic regions from motion. For some structures a mechanism is formed by one or several plastic hinges. If the change of geometry effects are completely ignored unlimited plastic flow will take place at this load level. .!e denote the load by
p0

which defines the

p < p0

limit load or the collapse load of the structure. For any structure will remain rigid.

the

For complex structure, it is often difficult to find the exact limit load p. There are two theorems of limit analysis, i.e. lower-bound theorem and upper-bound theorem, providing a practical solution to bounding p from below and above. If these bounds coincide, p is

29

known. In practice, the lower-bound theorem always gives a conservative estimate which is desirable in structural engineering.

2.1.4 Lower-Bound Theorem The lower-bound theorem states that if a set of stresses for a structure are in equilibrium with an external load p, satisfy any boundary conditions and nowhere violate the yield criterion, then the load p is a lower bound to the limit load p.

n<p0

Such a system of stresses is often referred to as a statically admissible stress field. The theorem is proved by the integral

(2.1)

where Q is a system of generalized stresses in equilibrium with p and satisfying the yield criterion f(Q) < 1. Q and are the actual

stresses and strain rates at the limit load p, dv is an infinitesimal volume of the ' structure. When = 0 the structure remains rigid and the integral I is zero.

If i4 0 then Q is the vector to a point on the yield surface f = 1 and is a normal to the yield surface outward at that point. In addition

the stress vector Q is within or on the yield surface. Therefore the vector (Q - Q) in equation (2.1) makes an angle of at least 90 with the vector q. Hence, the integral I < 0 if 0. i.e.

30

.dvQ . 2dv

(2.2)

Actually the integrals denote the internal energy rate within the structure. Let d 1 be the external energy rate with respect to unit load p 1, then

dv =

(2.3)

Applying virtual work to the stress field Q in equilibrium with p0, we have

(2.4)

Substitution of (2.3) and (2.4) into (2.2) leads to pd 1 < pd 1 . Note that d 1 is positive and therefore

p;

p0

2.1.5 A velocity field is assumed to satisfy the prescribed velocity boundary conditions. Then the strain rate field further a stress field stress field is determined and

is obtained by means of normality. The

is not necessarily in equilibrium unless the assumed

deformation mechanism is correct. Although Q+ may not be unique, the associated internal energy is unique since the component of stress along the normal is unique. The unit external energy rate d 2 is defined as the external energy rate due to a load p = 1. So we define by

31

av=pt

(2.5)

The velocity field is defined as kinematically admissible provided that d 2 is positive. The upper-bound theorem states that if there exists a kinematically admissible field for the load p, then bound to the limit pressure p 0 , i.e. is an upper

pop+

The upper bound theorem is proved by considering the intregral

) .

dv

(2.6)

If

= 0, the integral 1 = 0. If

0, the integral is non-positive

+ from normality. Hence I < 0 and

(2.7)

Further considering the virtual work rate done by the actual load p0 we have

(2.8)

Finally, substitution of (2.5) and (2.8) into (2.7) leads to p 0d 2 <pd2. Note that d 2 is a positive quantity and therefore

32

pp+

2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FINITE ELEMENT METHOD In the finite element method, the actual continuum is represented as an assemblage of subdivisions called finite elements. These elements are considered to be interconnected with adjacent elements through specified joints which are called nodes or nodal points. Usually, the displacement method is used to solve structural problems. First of all, we have to assume a simple function to approximate the displacement field in an element. If u 1 is the displacement of a point and {uJ is the displacement vector of the element nodes, we may define the displacement field in terms of the values at the element nodes.

[N]{U} (2.9)

The matrix [N] is called a "shape function" which is usually taken in the form of polynomials. From the assumed nodal displacements {u}, the element strains and stresses can be obtained by using the equation of structural mechanics. The strains at a point of an element can be derived by taking the proper derivatives of the displacement field with respect to a preselected coordinate system. Therefore the strain-displacement relationship can be expressed as:

33

[E}= [B]}

(2.10)

where [B] depends on the nodal coordinates. The stresses within one element are easy to derive from Hooke's law in elasticity.

(2.11)

where [0] is the material property matrix. Once the matrices [B] and [0] have been established the stiffness matrix [K] and the load vector {P 1 } of the element can be derived by using either the equilibrium conditions or a suitable variational principle. Their relationship can be shown as:

[]t u =P
[B] T [o] [B] dv. It can be seen that [KJ is = J evaluated by nodal coordinates and material property data. in which

(2.12)

EK]

Since the structure is composed of a set of finite elements, the individual element stiffness matrices and load vectors are to be assembled in a suitable manner to formulate the overall equilibrium equations. The procedure of constructing the overall equations from the element characteristics is based on the requirement of "compatibility" at the element nodes. Taking, the generalized displacements as the nodal variables, the displacements must be matched at a common node. The nodal stiffness and nodal loads of each of the elements sharing the node

34

are then added to obtain the net stiffness and the net load at that node. Let [K] and {P} denote the assembled system stiffness matrix and system nodal forces respectively, they are obtained by algebraic addition as

[k] =[KJ

where m denotes the total number of elements. Correspondingly, the overall equilibrium equations have the form

(2.13)
in which {u} is the vector of system nodal displacements which will be taken as unknown variables in the equations. Before the equation (2.13) can be solved, the boundary conditions have to be supplied. For structural mechanics problems, some support constraints haveto be imposed to keep the structure in equilibrium under loading. Otherwise the structure will be free to undergo unlimited rigid body motion. In this case the matrix [K] will be singular and the solution {u} can not be obtained. After incorporating the boundary conditions in the assembled system of equations, the unknown variables, i.e. the displacement field, can be solved quite easily; Finally, the element strains and stresses can be computed from the

35

solved nodal displacements by using equations (2.9) and (2.10). The above description can only be applied for structures which exhibit linear response under loading. In the case of nonlinear problem the general discussion is given in the next section.

2.3 NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 2.3.1 The yield criterion determines the stress level at which plastic deformation begins. It can be written in the general form

{crL k) = O (2.1L.)

where f is yield function and k a material strain hardening parameter to be determined experimentally. For most metals we assume that the plastic strain increment is proportional to the stress gradient of the yield surface f.

ddxf
where d is a non-negative number. Equation (2.15) is termed the normality condition since
cr13

(2.15)

is a vector normal to the yield surface

at the stress point. As an exarriple a two dimensional yield surface is illustrated in Fig. 2.1. Once yielding takes place further plastic deformation due to the increment of loading may be dependent on the current state of plastic strain. This phenomenon is termed strain hardening. Thus theyie1d

36

surface will vary at each stage of the plastic deformation. Usually there are three models which describe strain hardening in a material. (1) For a perfectly plastic material the yield surface does not depend on the degree of plastic deformation in any way. (2) Isotropic strain hardening (ref. 80). As yielding develops the current yield surface expands uniformly in all directions to form a series of concentric surfaces to the original yield surface. (3) Kinematic strain hardening (refs. 81, 82). As yield progresses the subsequent yield surfaces translate without rotation or change of shape. For some yield surfaces such as the Tresca surface, normality is not uniquely defined for certain stress combinations. This is due to the fact that the yield condition is not a single continuous function. It may be expressed by a series of functions: f 1 ,f2 , ...,

f.

For the

boundary surface which is defined by a single function such as m = the normality rule will apply. However, at a 'corner' of the yield surface we may have several conditions such as = = = = 0.

The normal to such a 'corner' is not uniquely determined. For a material obeying the Tresca yield criterion, this difficulty may be overcome by defining the direction of plastic straining using the von Mises yield function at the particular points since the von Mises criterion is a cylinder which also passes through the 'corners' of the Tresca criterion. In practice it would be better to avoid the singular points by choosing continuous yield surfaces. Otherwise the accuracy may be lost to a certain extent.

2.3.2 The Stress-strain Relation and its Matrix Form After initial yielding the material behaviour will be partly elastic and partly plastic. During any increment of stress, the changes of

- 37

strain are assumed to be divided into elastic and plastic components.

=d 1 ^d4
If the material is assumed to be rigid-perfectly plastic d
=

(2.16)

In the plastic region, unlike the elastic region, the stresses are not uniquely defined by strains. The relationship between various stresses and various plastic strains is determined by the whole loading path and the current state of stress, strain and strain rate. Since the plastic deformation of metals is due to the deviatoric stress components it is reasonable to assume that the incremental deviatoric plastic strain is proportional to the deviatoric stress i.e.

d=dco

(2.17)

It has been proved that the scale factor dc equal to dA in (2.15) can be expressed in terms of the equivalent stress obtained from a tensile test. Therefore and strain d

d=dc=---4
Equation (2.17) may thus be expressed as

d3=+.4

(2.18)

which is knowrL as the Prandtl-Reuss equation. Equation (2.18) is

38

almost identical to Hooke's law except that the scale factor (d

/)

replaces lIE, and Poisson's ratio is replaced by 0.5 for the plastic case. Note that in the plastic case the stresses can only be related to the incremental strains, whereas in the elastic case they are related to the total strains. The elastic strain increments in equation (2.16) are related to the stress increments by a matrix {DJ, thus

}e[ D]{a}

Equation (2.16) may then be written as

(2.19)

The column vector

{a} in

(2.19) represents the stress components, e.g.

in the Cartesian coordinate system we have

}=['

...... ]T

and correspondingly

____

1- _ f_ L' O

a-}

2'

L ......
)

which is also a column vector. When yielding occurs the stresses are on the yield surface given by (2.14). Differentiating it we obtain

39

+ :
2.

af-

+.

i.e. (2.20)
in which

A=

(2.21)

Observing equations (2.19) and (2.20), we obtain the complete elastoplastic incremental stress-strain relationship as follows:

(2.22)

Introducing

a} =

It
}

we have

[D]ep=[DJ_ A^{}[o]}

[o} {o}

{0411D1

(2.23)

The elasto-plastic matrix [DIeP is symmetric, positive definite, and takes the place of the elasticity matrix [0] in incremental analysis. Finally, we have to determine the explicit form of the scalar A. For a strain hardening material the hardening parameter k on which the current yield surface depends must be taken into account. The parameter k may be considered to be represented by the amount of plastic work done during plastic deformation. Hence

40

Employing the normality condition in (2.15) to express d{c} we obtain

K=

We can rewrite equation (2.21) as

_f 1Tf

The value of A can be calculated provided that an explicit relationship between f and k is known. It is easy to obtain the uniaxial stress-strain curve from a simple tension test. For a complex stress and strain state the relationship is obtained by means of the equivalent stress and strain as often used in plasticity. It

has been proved that the scale A is the local slope of the stress-strain curve in loading path. For an elastic-perfectly plastic material with rio strain hardening the value of A is zero.

2.3.3 General Solution Procedure The finite element method applied to solve an actual problem including material nonlinear behaviour is well established. Only the basic concepts and general procedure are described here. For details see reference (83). In nonlinear analysis, the material properties are prescribed. The loads applied to the structure are defined by means of a load function which may be represented by a series of load values versus corresponding 'time' steps. The magnitude of load at each time step depends on the nonlinearities of the structure.

41

At time t, the tangent stiffness matrix [ K equation

1 is obtained from the

[Kt] =[BJT [otJ[BJ

where the matrix [B] depends on nodal coordinates. The current material property matrix

[be] is provided by the material model . It can be

updated at any time depending on the current stress, strain state and the corresponding material properties such as strain hardening rate. The incremental nodal point equilibrium equation for an assemblage of nonlinear finite elements under static loading is

[K t ]ou} = R+}- {F}

(2.24)

where [KtI is the tangent stiffness matrix at time t, {u} is the vector of nodal point displacement increments from time t to time t + t, {Rt+t is the external load vector applied at time t+t, and {Ft} is the nodal point force vector equivalent to the element stresses at time t. By solving equation (2.24),the increiental nodal displacement at time t will be obtained. After that, increments of the strain are calculated. These calculated strain increments are passed on to the material model to calculate the corresponding stress increments. Equivalent nodal loads are obtained for each element by converting element stresses to a system of equivalent loads at the element nodes. This system does the same work as the element stresses would do during a virtual displacement. In other words a system of internal nodal

42

forces is calculated for each element. The residual loads are then obtained by subtracting these internal forces from the actual applied forces. The internal force vector at time t is defined as:

F}=[B]

}dv

(2.25)

As was discussed in reference (83), it may be necessary to use equilibrium iteration in each or preselected time steps in order to improve the solution accuracy. Consider the equilibrium equations

[K J

{ u=

} - {^
- {u^t}

}I) - 2,3...

(2.26)

in which {u}1

= {u t +t }

are the approximations to the

displacement increments obtained in iteration i. The vector of nodal point forces is equivalent to the element stresses in the

configuration corresponding to the displacements

{Ut+t}(1fl.

Iterations are performed until the convergence criterion specified by the user is satisfied. The convergence criterion often used is to compare the Euclidian norm of the system displacement vector at iteration cycle i with respect to that at previous cycle (i-i). At the end of each load step the residual nodal load is added to the next load step for further equilibrium solution. The algorithm used to solve the equilibrium equation (2.24) is the step-by-step solution method. The stiffness matrix of the nonlinear elements is updated in preselected load steps to form the current tangent stiffness matrix. The interval of load steps in which a new

tangent stiffness matrix is to be formed must be defined with care to prevent the development of instabilities.

43

The solution process outlined above has been implemented by many researchers and applied to practical to be efficient.

probles. It has

been proved

44

1j

Fig. 2.1 A schematic yield surface and normality rule.

Fig. 2.2 Two-moment limited interaction yield surface.

CHAPTER THREE

45 CHAPTER THREE PLASTIC LIMIT ANALYSIS OF A CYLINDER-CYLINDER INTERSECTION WITH DEFECT

Nomenclature

R R' Q T T' t r
r0

radius of vessel radius of crack, see Fig. 3.5. radius of nozzle thickness of vessel thickness of crack, see Fig. 3.5 thickness of nozzle polar coordinate in the vessel, see Fig. 3.1(c) The length of assumed plastic zone in vessel, see Fig. 3.1(c) dimensionless polar coordinate in the vessel dimensionless polar coordinate at the intersection dimensionless length of assumed plastic zone in the vessel circumferential coordinate for the nozzle, crack and vessel axial coordinate of nozzle dimensionless axial coordinate of nozzle dimensionless length of assumed elastic zone in nozzle along 0= 0. +1 for external crack, -1 for internal crack

u=r/R u0ciIR = r0 I R
0

zJ Z=Z'IQ

zo

b m=T'/T
S

the distance between the mid-surfaces of crack and vessel in the normal direction fractional ligament thickness arc length of intersection curve in sense 0= 0 to 0 =IC/2 unit vector tangent to the intersection curve see Fig. 3.6 unitvector in the surface of nozzle perpendicular , see Fig. 3.1(d). to e

et

46

unitvector in the surface of vessel perpendicular toe , see Fig. 3.1(b) unitvector in the surface of vessel perpendicular toe andeV orthogonal set of unit vectors for the nozzle, see Fig. 3.1(c), (d)
S

orthogonal set of unit vectors, see Fig. 3.l(b),(c) angle between u 9 and et, see Fig. 3.1(d). yield stress of material in simple tension

P p N , Ne N0,N0 Me p
L(Z U9

internal pressure dimensionless pressure

(=PR/c0T)

stress resultants per unit length of nozzle element see Fig. 3.2 and 3.3, for vessel r replaces z, a prime indicates the stress resultant of crack region

n = N1/a0T m 1 =L.M1/cy0T2
Q/c10T {x).

dimensionless stress resultants for vessel, for crack region, adding primes for nozzle, t replaces T

set of parameters defining the stress system vector of stress parameters function for optimization procedure parameter in the Y function initial K stress function for the vessel stress function for the crack error tolerance in junction equilibrium

x Y K
K0

F F'

Y3

Q t Qm+JQtrnl/f

Qt

Qq

Qm lQtrnl//

47

Qt

QqQ
Qt

+Qq+O.Lp8Qm

-0.2 L[(Qq1QmJ)
in which

Q t =n+n-n 1 n 2 +3n2
Qmm

^m - m 1 m2+3m2

Qtm n 1 m 1 - n i m 2_ 4n 2 m 1 ^n 2 m 2+3n12m12 Qq=3q^3q22

for details see ref.(79).

48

CHAPTER THREE PLASTIC LIMIT ANALYSIS OF A CYLINDER-CYLINDER INTERSECTION WITH DEFECT

3.1 INTRODUCTION The problem of calculating a lower bound to the limit pressure of two intersecting cylindrical shells with a defect is an important task in the pressure vessel industry. The defect may be produced by welding at the junction during manufacture. In order to simplify the problem, the defect assumed here is a circumferential part-through thickness crack in the vessel concentric with the nozzle and located at the intersection of nozzle and main vessel. The approach adopted here is based on the plastic limit analysis which calculates the maximum load that a structure made of rigid-perfectly plastic material can sustain (ignoring changes of geometry). Complete solutions are hard to obtain, but from the point of view of safety the lower bound solution is quite appropriate. The limit solution was calculated by using a non-linear optimization procedure. In the following analysis, it is assumed that both the nozzle and vessel are thin enough for thin shell theory to be a reasonable approximation. In addition, we assume that the radius of the nozzle is small comparing with the radius of the main vessel (we limit the ratio of a/R to be less than or equal to 0.3). It is then possible to use the shallow shell equations with the efficient polar coordinates. Several papers have been written on the limit analysis of the cylinder-cylinder intersection without defect. Goodall (84) carried out lower bound analysis for the small radius radial nozzle using the shallow shell equations and the approximate two-moment limited interaction yield

49

surface. Srinivasaiah and Schroeder (34) conducted a lower bound limit analysis using the three-dimensional equilibrium equations and the von Mises yield criterion for the stresses in the nozzle and vessel. Robinson (31) computed a lower bound to the limit pressure of a cylindercylinder intersection under internal pressure using a nonlinear programming method. The stress resultants for both nozzle and vessel are expanded as trigormetric or polynomial series. The coefficients of the series and the pressure p forming the components of a vector x are then varied so as to maximise p subject to the equilibrium condition and yield constraint being satisfied at a finite set of points. The theory is valid for nozzles of any radius. Schroeder (85, 86) calculated the upper bounds to the limit pressures of branch-pipe lateral connections. The external loads were end couples rather than the internal pressure. Recently Khan, Chen and Hsiao (87) studied the effects of reinforcement on the stress field in the intersection region of two normally intersecting cylindrical shells under the loading of either in-plane or out-of-plane moments. The results were obtained numerically by the use of a threedimensional finite element program, and experimentally by the use of strain gauges. Up to now neither theoretical nor experimental solutions of a cylinder-cylinder intersection with such a circumferential crack have been obtained. An attempt was therefore made to provide a lower bound to the limit pressure affected by the crack with different values of depth.

3.2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS The geometry of two intersecting cylindrical shells is shownin Fig. 3.1, together with some direction vectors and coordinates. In the

50

following analysis, the shallow shell equilibrium equations (see Green and Zerna (88)) expressed by means of polar coordinates (r,e) in the vessel are used. This method is very suitable for small radius nozzles provided that the plastic zone in the vessel is confined to a region where the usual shallow shell approximations are valid. It will be seen from the equilibrium equations (next section) that we have five equations in eight unknowns and hence that three independent functions have to be defined. These functions are chosen to be a stress function F defining the in-plane stress resultants, and bending moments me and me. For the nozzle, there are six equilibrium equations with nine unknowns. Three independent variables i.e. the bending moments m , m0 and m0 are therefore chosen beforehand. Once the independent

variables have been defined, the remaining stress resultants can be derived from the equilibrium equations plus boundary conditions. The stress resultants in the crack region are also obtained by using the shallow shell equations except that the three independent variables and associated stress resultants are simplified by taking the width of the crack equal to zero. To calculate the stress resultants, the general method is to let the independent functions in the plastic region depend on a finite set of parameters x 1 by expanding them as polynomials in the coordinates z or r and trigoniietrical function in the circumferential direction

0.

Finally, all of the stress resultants in the nozzle, crack and vessel are expressed by the parameters x 1 and geometrical variables such as z, u(=r/R) and e. 4s shown in Fig. 3.1 the pressure vessel is assumed to be divided into rigid and plastic regions. In the nozzle, the rigid-plastic boundary

51

is fixed at z = 0 and the possible plastic region extends a distance z to the intersection corresponding to 0 = 0. The value of z 0 is usually taken to be a/2R + 3.5 x (tIa) which is determined based on an extended dimensionless elastic damping length. In the vessel, the region u > r0/R) is assumed rigid, in which a constant stress field

applies. The assumed plastic zone is confined to a region bounded by r = r 0 . Considering the validity of the shallow shell aporoxirnations, is restricted to be less than or equal to R which corresponds to an angle of 30 degrees usually applied in elasticity theory. In addition, the equilibrium of forces and moments at the intersections of nozzle-crack and crack-vessel must be satisfied to a certain extent. For most non-symmetric shells, exact agreement at all points of the intersections is impossible since the stress resultants are only expressed by a finite number of parameters. The method adopted in the following analysis is to limit the integral of the square of the difference in the force components and moments on either side of the intersections, to be less than some specified values. In other words, an overall inequality constraint is imposed which bounds the error to a specified accuracy. The yield surface chosen for the optimization is Y 3 (see nomenclature) in the nozzle and vessel, i.e,

For the crack region, we use

Y3,1
In the yield surface Y, the transverse shear stress resultants and q0

 52

which are quite significant in the crack are included. The applied load is the dimensionless pressure p and the lower bound theorem of limit analysis states that p is less than or equal to the limit pressure if a set of stress resultants (1) satisfies the equilibrium conditions including the equilibrium inequality at the intersections, and (2) nowhere violates the yield criteria. Based on the above requirements, the limit pressure p is calculated by using a nonlinear optimization procedure. Generally speaking, the problem is to maximise the pressure p subject to a set of convex quadratic inequality constraints which include the yield criteria and junction equilibrium inequality. The method used here is Fiacco and McCormick's sequential unconstrained minimization technique (SUMT). This is a standard nonlinear programming method which has been applied by Robinson and Gill (24) to a cylinder-sphere problem. At the end of the optimization process the yield function is checked at a large number

of points in the shell. If any violations occur a reduction factor of lilY (Y is the maximum value assumed greater than unity, otherwise no reduction factor is required) is imposed. In addition, the forces and moments for both the nozzle-crack and crack-vessel intersections are printed out at 50 intervals to check the equilibrium conditions. Several

computational points concerning this method are discussed in reference (89).

3.3 BASIC EQUATIONS 3.3.1 sic_EutintheNoz1 The equations of equilibrium for the nozzle are:

53

(3.lo) !flL-_=o am mez rne e t 4-OS

(3.lb) (3.lc) (3.ld) (3.le) (3.lf)

r=o -

m 2 e

where z = z'/a, the sign convention is shown in Fig. 3.2. It has been assumed that m zO = m0. Now it is apparent that with six equations in nine unknowns, three independent functions should be required. It turns out that for the nozzle the best combination is m0 and m0. Once they are prescribed

the other stress resultants can be found in terms of them, except that n is undefined to an arbitrary function of e. Symmetry requires that n , m, n3, me, are symmetric about e = 0 and e = 7r/2 and that

m 0 , q 0 are anti-symmetric. All stress resultants will be assumed continuously differentiable with respect to 0. First consider the rigid region z < 0. We assume that the nozzle is long enough for the plastic zone not to extend to the end cap. We assume further that n0 = = = = 0 in z < 0 and that there is

no variation of any quantity with z in this part of the nozzle. Two other requirements are that the total axial load on the end cap is ira 2 p acting through the centre of the cap, thus

54

2Jt (

ncL=itafayc ,

fl_

/0

These conditions are met by the following stress system on z = 0,

3E

m=

E Cfr6 z

bi

OT i: I

c_e

The coefficients {G.1 } form part of the x vector. In z < 0 the stress system is,

fl1E-!'2AO

FJ

with q =

n0 = ze = m0 = U , B is an arbitrary constant not

part of the x vector. In z > 0 let FJ :i t=o 1: ,.J m0 :i (2 CM z +: I

_O j2.

i ::i
0

2 9

4;0 30

:i b
I3 ;t

m0=

::i tI 3=1 c and

where the

are arbitrary constants forming part of

the x vector and EN, Kl, K2 and K3 give the order of polynomials and harmonics and can be varied as desired.

55

The other stress resultants are obtained from the equi1ibr equations. Equations (31d) 9lves

irI K
,2

=- >1 I j=0j2
Equation (3.le) gives

1(3.

-VCJ

CO52j9

8L(m4 +---2 -

K2

jo
From equation (3.}c) we have a;

4j

6Rt
in which ; z - F'i KJ

zG 2j iw K3
z = --I ;i j - (YZ 2

-' ii 9 0

1 k2. tI

Hence
cIT

4-a

4jZ
29

fl8p_1 :.o

Ri
(i-)a

56

4-3Cq
I Equation (3.lb) gives 7I

--

:i 2j (-i)a
.=o j2

5ri

i-I
t

FV lc2 Z4-l)L'in2O

jo

(t-)C3
Note that = 0 at z = 0, integration gives

ao / KI

.=0

I ::i
. = I

0:i
iJ K2. 0

z-O

2tf

3+1

SiO

+I :i
= I
:i=' Equation (3.lf) gives

fozz

n1o1

m0

=o 9 2

:i z3a 3
K2 +

' 5ir17O
ii. 1 1

(Lk - t)

Siv, 2 j 0

t=o

:o

57

2(t-4-)
tI 1I

s1e

Equation (3.la) gives

an
___ - ____ =

2R [-I :i
.t_.o

Fr'! Kt

42j (x ..

CM5 2

-Z

PJ K.
.t=o

_____

ji-I

C#i 7 -')

b;j

1+1

jI
(-.si$ when z = Owe have

Putting

y=

p +

iJ
iO
7. 1 +

KI
j2.

t. = O

:i
O

(j-t-I)(j-i.i)

cs2Gl.II 4i(4i)1
-fI =I

F4 <3

j=l

If required, the derivatives of bending moments are easily evaluated. 1rJ d

c-yL(e
4. = O j2.
iJ

i=1

j.=Z

(=1
Pi

2.

::i i.O j=0

t=l jo

=
t = I y1 r'J
=I

Cq
K3

:i ZC j

Z1

58

3.3.2 Basic Equations in the Vessel For a pressure vessel with small radius nozzle, the shallow shell formulation approach which is given by Green and Zerna (88) seems more reasonable to give the stress system in the vessel. The polar coordinates to be used are shown in Fig. 3.1. We define 0 to be the point where the axis of the nozzle meets the vessel, and 00' to be vertical, where 0' is on the axis of the vessel. The polar coordinate r is the distance of any point from 00'. The depth z of a point in the vessel surface is measured vertically downwards along 00'. The shallow shell equations are valid if (z/r) 2 can be neglected compared with unity. Thus it is necessary to impose the restriction < 0.5 to justify this approximation.

A limitation on the radius of nozzle will also be stipulated to satisfy the shallow shell requirements. As shown in Fig. 3.1, the vessel is split Into two regions which

are the rigid region and the assumed plastic region. We assume that the shallow shell equations are valid in the assumed plastic region where r < r 0 . With polar coordinates (r,O) the depth z below the horizontal plane through point 0 is given to shallow shell approximation by

vi I 4-R

(jtc&.-o)

(3.2)

Introducing the dimensionless stress resultants n = N/a0T, q = Q/a 0 T, m = 4r4/ci 0 T 2 and a dimensionless distance u shell equilibrium equations are: re r/R, the shallow

in)+

ne=o

(3.3)

L&

re)fl

=0

(3.4)

59

___

(r)-r;

___

(a
\r

Gj8
(3.5)

2 re \. r

rae

(un)^

(3.6)

curi18)^m ^me4L T
Using (3.2) equation (3.5) may be rewritten as

(3.7)

flr(L

1re

(3.8)

The sign convention of the stress resultants and moments is shown in Fig. 3.3. We assume that n r O
=

nor and m r O

mOr. Hence there

are eight unknowns. They cannot be solved by using the five equations above. It has been found that equations (3.3) and (3.4) are satisfied identically by a stress function F, where I
Z3F

^_LE.

fl:(f

- 'i -an ri rij)

(3.9)

In addition, another two independent variables are required. Previous work by Robinson (31) shows that the best way is to choose the function F, m 6 and mrO as the independent variables. Once they are defined, all of the other stress resultants can be derived in terms of them,provided the boundary conditions are supplied. The region u
> 3( =

r0 /R) is assumed rigid. An analysis of the

requirements for static admissibility is given in section 3.7. The function F must be such that on u n(hoop)
= =

we have the membrane solution

<

p and n(axial)

p/2. For u

the 'independent variables are

required to satisfy the following two conditions, (1) Symmetry requires

60

that r' mr n 0 , m 0 ,

are symmetric about & = 0 and o

in2 and

that n r O , mrO q 0 are anti-symmetric. (2) Boundary conditions (on u = require that = mrO = 0, and mr = rn 0 = constant, m0 forms one of the

x vector. The independent variables F, m 6 and mr0 are postulated to have the following form vK4 r=o
S'2.
2.

___

(3ze)

(3.10)

b
ro s=o

c-4, r e

(3.11)

K6 (3.12)

r=i s=t FV, K4, K5 and KG give the order of harmonics and polynomials nnd can be varied as desired. The a rs b rs Crs and m 0 together with the nozzle variables and crack variables, complete the x vector which is to be opt imised. For the assumed plastic region

(u < ) of the vessel, it will be

convenient to evaluate the stress resultants by the contribution of each individual term p, a rs brs and crs. Firstly, consider the p term, From the equations (3.9) and function F(3.lO) we have

o)

61

the p term contributes nothing to any other stress resultants. Secondly, consider the ars term, In the same way as above we have

1v

(4 rs[ ()

5-I

41 '

U)

joS

ro 52.
1V-4-

oI1 ro 52
re

ars

551)_L

re

II r=o S=2

2rs[+(

Integrating equations (3.8) and putting ic" r5[4+ 2 ) r-o sz

'I

0 at u

s-' 'S ars() -

4r

?f )c
CfrS 2.

ire

a
r:o :.v
+2tize k)

$(Si)(U)

Sl

ro

:i?- ra r5 (-- (,L-.)

S
---......

Let

dL&=-^

S-i

-i--)

'

Then

(-

41

1(S)) (& ire

N0

S2

+zrin e (- ls)

+-f)
=

in

Integrating equation (3.6) and putting mr

m 1 at u

62

3nhI

=-I a[---(I+c.2o)(
F'/ c.4 to =a )

4tJ))(lre
(u)S)2re

+rcne(-) (u Si-I t\sin ire] + I

U

where

I()d

s(i-)

)t $(%)

-i)(c-i

Now consider the brs term. We already have

FV m0

:i s= b r=

Equation (3.7) gives

___
_o 5=0

Hence

tv T ==--:i
I-=o

s=o and integrating equation (3.8) FV 5

2O( U.

rs

Sn2t9

Putting

= 0 at u =
IA (

a3-9

-O 5=0 {,
(U'

T)
5

(s=o) (5:;'Q)

The integral

Putting mr = m 2 at u

and integrating equation (3.6)

um

63

I
=1

-F-v

ro

_I brs[41))(i)]cro+n
.SO

(s=o) (c>o')

L r=o 5=0

rL S

r ( r- () !

4S(]

Finally, consider the C rs term. We already have

VC-6
(t )S .

r=

Equation (3.7) gives

FY

Tc &=
L&

Cr[5 (
= 0 at u =

t 2 (u

29

Integrating equations (3.8)

_1

IAv KG

(ur
-5 FV (6

)S]

2rG L&

re-i

s
U

rc [(1t-f+
5

2I()]CLrO

Putting

mr

m 3 at

and integrating equation (3.6)

1.Lmr=

[.RrnrQ]dU+

4Crs r s= -

-Pv "

O YCrs)tm r= s=

As will be readily seen, the complete formula of mr involves three constants m 1 , m 2 and m 3 which are contributed by a rs, brs and Crs respectively. They can be simply replaced by m 0 = m 1 + m 2 + m 3 , i.e. = mr at u . m is the final component of the x vector.

-- Surnmarizing briefly the expressions derived above, the stress resultants are given below,

64

iv

42.

=f(3^czo)^I
ro
::Q 5l

I a rs [-(

f'_-I (U
s-I-I

) 5]c ire

S1
5+I

zr

i-ie (_

s-I- I

)
CfrS i

ire]

+I b0[t +) - (-)
V ---&-:i

(rL ')]
_

ro

1 (.1 +i) U r ' :iI 6 cL Sti

K

)]$

Fv
-

U.

4Y Cr5( r=i
s=i

ir -i- 4- m0
S.- 2.

v (4

ars
ro
V 5=2.

r&

=
r=o s=o e= sin

rs

FV !(4.

e
r-
52

]irO

FV KG

m0=>
=

r=i

:i
5=1

C 5 (u-) 5 sii .
K45=2.

- v

r=o

- - ( (fr

2)

( ( c - I XL&-

C& ar

+l r( l c) --(u))
1V

si ire]

1VK5
-O S

r5+2I)]c-re
3='

65

_I 2R

L&
ro o

Shi

2O +

Crs[S'*2-(J]n2.rG

As required, the derivatives of

________ fV 4

ra

and
t

rnre

are:

2.

,-o

!o =i
rI

FV

2J Crs (k)S
5-1

3.3. 3 The equilibrium equations in the crack region are the same as in vessel except for the dimensionless limit pressure p ( RP/a 0 T). In

the crack region the limit pressure should have the form p' = R'P/c0T', that is p'=(R'/0T')(a0Tp/R)= p/q, where

R'/R1,T'T=

so the alternative of equation (3.8) is

(3.13)

Since we treat the crack region as a part of the vessel, so the equilibrium equations and the independent variables may be simply adopted as those in the vessel. The only difference is that the width of the crack is virtually zero, so we can simplify the independent variables as follows: fc r=c,
C7 a 5
5O

(3.14)

m=I :i
r- r=t

cu_u0)S

2--&

(3.15)

=o

2r

:i c

(3.16)

5O

66

Equations (3.3) and (3.4) are satisfied identically by the stress function F where I

r'

i f'

ii

__.

'

LLTE\ I Jk

(3.17)

The independent variables satisfy symmetry and the boundary conditions

will be met by the Kirchhoff equations.

Firstly, consider the p term,

n=

3^SG) ,

Secondly, consider the a 5 term, from equation (3.14) we have

i_I F' flt--I-:-Z- -

__

pc.. (7 r:o 5o

i- K7 ro 5O
=

For the crack region, we may suppose u

u 0 due to the width of

the crack being virtually zero. Developing the expression above some terms may equal zero except the term including 0 is significantly simplified to the following form
=

1. So the equation

1.C.

fl r=o

CL

Yc

ro

(3.18)

In the same way we obtain

n=2

czre

Y a s
ro

r a;0

ii

67

Equation (3.13) gives q)= -fl(c zo)^n cm 2)

L&-4i-C2O)--

Putting

at

= U 3 and integrating the equation

above gives 2re= (_n;u+62o)

^n n(ie)

S1i20)dA

when u

u the integration equals zero and we have

e cs ra

(3.191

Equation (3.6) gives

m)=4RI

putting

rri

=
T-C rn..= r=

c-s

-e

at u

u. In the same way as

above we have

d
term.

(3.20)

Now consider the Equation (3.7) gives

T'

2Y6
ro
U0 ,

putting u

we have

= T'
4R'

FC-

ro

--

2R'U, r:o

rb0 szre

68

Equation (3.13) gives -

= RTL
L)

r b 0 --

ra

putting

===

e. u

at u = u 0 and noting that the

integration equals zero,we have C(L)

cro

r
Equation (3.6) gives

T'
putting

I TC mr=I c1 1. CoS2re
rfl.. ==

at u = u 0 we have

d,. co-

rO

(3.21)

Finally, consider the c, 5 term. From equation (3.7)

-c - L

(9

cc- <9

C r
50
r-

when u = u 0 , Equation (3.13) gives

c__

2T6 + 2R'U-O ;i;. C- 'ra 'in 2O

=-

putting

9'

: are

at u = u 0 , we have

_ (OS 2r8 r: Equation (3.6) gives ,c.

r=o

(3)

(b5 2 - 8

(3.22)

69

From equation (3.20), (3.21) and (3.22) we obtain

C.

=
ro

(t)

e t
r=o

2G
r=o

, Ldp+dr +cx. )csire

()

('-)

,1;)

ro

-i.ro
erc5r&

Similarly,

After a little manipulations, we obtain

e) -

ire

+
r=o

a'rt

rG

P n 9 =(&)+ 22
0

ar

m=I
t
Q

c- re

2B - -:-:

a0

r 'i ire + -& :;

i a- r Siv

m=

$n

:;

er
7 1c

=;T

1"

b 0 rs ire +
-

Sin

C1

In addition,

____ -

2 C 0 r&

70

Rewriting the equations of n, and n 0 gives -

cc
-

'
3

zr =in2Oj (\ 2
U3 C.
A

2r '
a0--- ari1s2r9

Since the coefficients a' and a' 1 only occur in the above two equations, r ro the terms . (2r (.-a0 i: ro

c2re

and

__2L. a')

are completely independent.

They are equivalent to

L0
FC_

(\

2r

art,

'

2r

O)

==

Sin

and therefore the equations of

ri and n 0 can be simplified as follows:

n=

fl

= -2O

bn2o

Similarly, the equation of q can also be simplified.i.e.,

CsinZY9

3.4 JUNCTION GEOMETRY A cylindrical pressure vessel with a flush radial cylindrical nozzle is shown in Fig. 3.1. Now, we introduce a variable 0 (see Fig. 3.1(c)) which may determine uniquely a point at the intersection curve. The forces and moments associated at that point in the nozzle,

71

crack and vessel will therefore be known by the variable 0. The increment of arc length S is given by

ds =ad@/cosS (3.23)

we also have

a cos
Now

0 =

R sin '-P
and from equation (3.24) we get

(3.24)

z'=R(l- cosp)

z=z'/a=R[1-(1- . a 2 cos 2 o/R) 1/a

in which z is the dimensionless axial coordinate of the nozzle. The dimensionless length of assumed plastic zone in nozzle is defined by z 0 when @
=

0. Now, we shift the origin of z up to the boundary of

assumed rigid region in nozzle. We obtain

z=zo
The angle

^R{(1

a2/R2 ) /2

(1_a2cos2G/R2)]/a

(3.25)

is given by

tanS
We also have

dz/de =-sin 2e( R2/a2_cosbo)12

d(tanS)/do= sec2SclS/de
= -COS 2O(R2/a2_cos2o)sin22o(-_cos2e)3/2

So far the intersection curve has been described by the above equations.

3.5 VECTOR GEOMETRY The basic direction vectors and are shown in Fig. 3.1,

72

which is an orthogonal set of unit vectors for the nozzle. The vectors

et

and

Gr are

in the surface of the vessel and perpendicular to each

other. We define

eV et e

The vector e' is in the normal direction

outwards at a point in the surface of vessel. Let these vectors to be expressed in terms of nozzle vectors, i.e.,

(3.26) tI +/lfl* +
From Fig. 3.1(d) we have

(3.27) (3.28)

t1c:
comparing with equations (3.27), we obtain

7\ = U

By introducing a set of basis unit vectors j in Fig. 3.1 we have

and j2 shown

inOt -ee i-SOLL+Y)O L

(3.29) (3.30) (3.31)

73

From Fig. 3.1 we obtain

Si'ace/R

(3.32)

The unit vector e' is in the plane which passes through the vectors i, and i. By resolving in the direction eV in Fig. 3.1(b) we have

(3.33)
Substituting for the vectors i, and and using the expression (3.32) gives + fte/R from (3.30), (3.31) into (3.33)

(3.3L)
The corresponding values of therefore obtained, i.e. 1 1

and

in (3.26) are

5v1 Oc

Finally,

uz r t
V =

Un UO

X1 X2
P'2

X3

74

which gives

v1= X2t3-32

X 3 1i 1

_XiIL3 X21i
x 3 V1 and , P2 , p. 3 V3 have been

V3

Xi

Once the values of

X, , X 2

determined, the parameters by the computer program. By using

are then evaluated

d/ds (cos5/a ) d/de

we have

du/ds (
in which we have used

c/c) d/=(c/c)

(3.35)

du/de = u

Differentiating equation (3.34) Oives

[w 1 w 2 w 3 1{}
Note that

(3.36)
and

du/dO=o , du/de=u 9 d&'/ds

du9/de=-u

after a little manipulation we obtain the expressions of W 1 , and W 3 for

Wi =-

Q5in

2O/R(

2e)V

0 Lo- fR
w3= The above expressions (3.35) and (3.36) will be used in the equilibrium equations for the intersections of nozzle-crack and crack-vessel.

.. 75

3.6 JUNCTION EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS 3.6.1 The Forces and Moments at the Intersections (1) The forces and moments at the intersection between nozzle and crack The forces per unit length of nozzle acting on ds are shown in Fig. 3.4 and are:

Y = (No-6- Qc.&S )LL

By taking the dimensionless stress resultants for nozzle

We have

=ot[(

5fl0cin

)Lt + ( nc&s

onecn 5)L

- 2C)n

(3.37)

Let M be the vector moment per unit length of nozzle acting on ds and let Mn =Mr .e in which fl

H 9 s)U _o: 4{(m . co ri 0

By using e' = we have

t(Men -

Mo )Lt0

sin)U+(risn rnc-)uo]

(3.38)

COSUzSIflUe

M=M
= tI

41 (m cs 5-rn 8 Sn 5) t (mcn 5-m i

o),J ( 5

-Sn

5 u 0)

76

c] (3.39)

In a similar Way the forces and moments at the crack region are: C

YoT ' (

'%' r e

nreni)

'

'1:

(3.40)

M _Mcer Mc=M0er*

In which

Mre (3.41)

= 7Therefore OT' +
L

M=

__0T'
4

(3.42)

(2) The forces and moments at the intersection between crack and vessel As derived above we have

ic =O oT /(_ 2 e v + nc.e:k + ne) _

(3.43)

M =

= oT'm1

(3.44)

For the forces and moments of vessel, due to the presence of the defect at the junction between nozzle and vessel, the offset of the mid-surfaces of vessel and crack must be taken into account. As shown in Fig 3.5 there is a pitch bbetween the two mid-surfaces in the direction of normal to the surface of vessel at the junction. For / external crack = 1 and internal crack = -1. The intersection forces

and moments are shown in Fig. 3.6. In order to apply the Kirchhoff boundary conditions at the intersection between crack and vessel, let all of the components of forces and moments of vessel refer to the mid-surface of crack region. As shown in Fig. 3.7 there are an additional twisting couple

77

Mre Y"b

= '0b
and a bending moment

rO

(3.145)

Mrb
=G

bTflr t
and
cyv.er

(3.46)
respectively. The

produced by the moving of forces G sign convention of

Mre and Mr

is the same as

Mre and Mr

shown

in Fig. 3.3. Therefore we obtain:

13.47)
=

M' er
5oT1r i b Tflra (3.48)

3.6.2 Now it is well known that in thin shell theory the correct boundary conditions are not static equilibrium equations such as

M1+M2O,o1^o2

O. It is usual to impose the so-called Kirchhoff boundary conditions at the intersection. It should be realised, however, that both are a simplification of the complex behaviour in the immediate neighbourhood of the intersection. In this region thin shell centre line theory can only provide an overall approximation due to the discontinuity of slope and 'overlapping' of material. For the pressure vessel with a crack at the junction the Kirchhoff boundary conditions may be applied to the follo.iing intersections: 1. the intersection between nozzle and crack. 2. the intersection between

78

crack and vessel. The formulations will be given in sequence as follows:

1. The Kirchhoff ecivations a pp lied at the intersection between nozzle and crack The Kirchhoff equations applied at this intersection are

ftM n ) (ci
where f( fl )

f(Me.)Q

(3.g)

Mc).
and

(3.50)

= - d (M LL)/ds

-R MC)

d ( M e)/ds

From equation (3.39) we have

4a Lt

(3.51)

where we have used

(c/a)

(3.52)

From equation (3.42) we have __

I

dV dmev)
n29rn0 Ct
n2

Tc&

(a

am9 e -

ZR'

m)

(3.53)

where we have used Equation (3.52) and \

as
The Kirchhoff equation (3.49), by means of the summation of equations (3.37), (3.40), (3.51) and ( 3 .53), leads to

79

(flo
-

f 9. l

SinS)

- ( 0 Sin - s n S c.d 5

S )U.^(fl 19 c.SSnsin O)L

ci n 2 co-i S

u- (c,o

C_5

me -: n5cs-S
a ni )

2 in 25cS

m 0

C8SC&2S

_____

1Sin5(2S

m1

Sin5L5

m 0 52o m)
a

oo)ev -

(n+

sinG

T'
4-R't

(3.5i) et =
cos

By using equation (3.38) and

5u

i-

sinS

we obtain

sinS

_d0t 7 k m '
-

co-

5 - me sin5 --m

Sir25)

(3.55)

From equation (3.41) we obtain

ti c.

(3.56)

The Kirchhoff equation (3.50), by means of the summation of equations (3.55) and (3.56), leads to
2

mcd5-t-m 0 sin2 om 6 sin2S _LL\ m'=o \ t J

(3.57)

80

2. The Kirchhoff equations applied at the intersection between crack and vessel The Kirchhoff equations applied at this intersection are,

1. (iv )

=.

(3.58) (3.59)

( 1c ^

MV)

Mr

where

(M=_d(Mcev)/ctS, M==
R)a(Mev)/ds,

Mvro

From equation (3.44) we have

T'2 ,

&'0T' crfle eY 4- c/S -

^ Sinem

(3.60)

4R'
From equation (3.48) we have

___

4.0.

___

obT

!-

eV

_/T10 4R I

_____

en

____

2.

10flre)et R

(3.61)

The Kirchhoff equation (3.58), by means of the summation of Equations (3.43), (3.47), (3.60) and (3.61), leads to

81

v4-at
7-

Lre
+

T' '

T'

4R't
-

n26

me)
__

__

at
bT

4ct

L)

4R

bv
__-

nenre _T
-

t om^+ri r9)eO

(3.62)

From equation (3.46) we have

r

MreObT
also we have

(3.63)

=-M =M
r

--m

(3.6k) (3.65)

Finally, the Kirchhoff equation (3.59), by means of the summation of Equations (3.63), (3.64) and (3.65),leads to

4-bT
^- T'2

(3.66)

3.6.3 The Kirchhoff equations derived above cannot be satisfied exactly at all points of the intersections. Therefore, as an overall approximation, an integral of the square of the difference in the force components and moments on either side of the intersections is limited to be less than

82

some specified value. Firstly consider the intersection of nozzle and crack, let

f ,
' 4-
C.

n denote the components of the nozzle forces

in equation (3.49) in the directions

PC.
C.

respectively.

'

'

are similarly defined for the crack region. S0 ( denotes the fractional tolerance. Then one

is the arc length .

possible idea would be to impose the inequality.

so ( r 0

Z )

[(f-fj+(-

+(- ) ]

2..

dG<SY)

(3.67)

where f is an estimate of the average intersection force in equation (3.49) based on the estimate of the limit pressure dimensionless pressure average
p p

0 . Note that the

0 = RP/G0 T . It is easy to obtain that on

p/-rcat =o.T/ZRt
Also will be approximately 0.1. Therefore we obtain

(3.68)

2.

(oraJ2Rt)o.o

In the same way we have another inequality

'so
C. ( [(f-f)

C.

t (rf)
C

t(Ttt

10

ds <S 0

('J

(3.69)

C.

C.

where

'f

denote the components of the crack forces in

equation (3.58) in the directions C" ,

e'

respectively.

-j- , --

are similarly defined for the vessel.

f'

is also an estimate

of the average force acting on the intersection of crack and vessel. Since the width of the crack region is virtually zero and the variations

83

of all the stress resultants in the direction perpendicular to the crack are ignored, we define the force the direction eV in the same way as
L(

acting on the intersection ds in . Note that

in thin shallow shell theory, we have

iv -- 21T0.T' -

P
-

T P0 (

t -

2Rt T' - ) "T'

In order to simplify the computation we take T'/t as a multiplier in equation (3.58), that is
,C

t(+)

It can be seen in equation (3.62). Also taking define Z. ' () o.ot=_) +o.o

-f=o.

similarly we

In the following discussion

-f-

is substituted for

'

Considering equations (3.50) and (3.59), the equivalent inequalities to equations (3.67) and (3.69)are (so 10 so ( ( )o

c_n
(m-m

)ds<S0(y)

(3.70)

c_v

and

t as <S0(')
f=-- ,

(3.71)

respectively. Following the same idea as

we also define

i,that

may be realised by the following manipulations From equations (3.57) and (3.66) we define

84

rmco? i- mr

- rnSn2

(3.72) (3.73)

m=m.

4bT
r
1

(3.74) (3.75)

If t yequatiOnS (3.72) and (3.73) remain unaltered, equations (3.74) and (3.75) will be multiplied by (TVt) 2 respectively. If t> T' equations (3.72) and (3.73) will be multiplied by (tIT') 2 and equations (3.74), (3.75) remain unaltered. These manipulations are based on the idea that the estimated average value of is always referred to the

bending moment of the thinnest part among the nozzle, crack and vessel. In this case the value of iii is approximately between 0.5 and 1.0. In order to realise computationally those equalities derived above it may be simpler to combine these inequalities (3.67), (3.69), (3.70) and (3.71) into one inequality by adding them together. Although this is less restrictive than those inequalities separately this method will be acceptable since the integrals must be-positive. Thus we obtain so so r
C
fl

2.

p1

(m m )
50

j-

( ((f-) + (-f) +(-f0) ) d

10 V L

+\ (mm+ )ds+ ff10

LV

LSoo((-fc

V - v)

\J-

j+(f-))as1<1

V 2

(3.76)

Previous experience shows that y=0.i is quite sufficient to give reliable answers. is typically 1.0, the estimated value of limit

85

pressure p 0 may vary according to the parameters of geometry. The initial value of p 0 may be 0.5 unless it is expected to be significantly lower for the vessel with deep crack. Finally the forces and moments on either side of the two intersections are printed out at to check that the difference is small. 0 intervals

3.7 STATIC ADMISSIBILITY IN THE RIGID REGIONS (a) z<oin the nozzle In the part Z

< 0

the stress resultants are:

iTP trCS2tO
m = Ecz.e
40

_T

fl 0

=0
1m 6 1

To satisfy the yield function, it is apparent that certainly have to be less than one. Therefore, we have

will almost

-1^B^1

(3.77)

Applying this rule to the computer program, we just simply test all values of B which satisfy (3.77) and are positive or negative multiples of 0.1. If the value of B gives no yield violation anywhere in z < o the solution is satisfactory. Otherwise, we choose the value of B which gives least violation at the worst point and impose an appropriate reduction factor.

86

(b) iain vessel The rigid region is assumed to be u > and in this region the

shallow shell equations are no longer applicable. We postulate - 17 /2. YlQOf=

P,

= m hO0

== m0

and all other stress resultants zero. These stress resultants are in equilibrium with the shallow shell stress resultants along the assumed rigid-plastic boundary, i.e. u= Applying the yield criterion we have for the optimization procedure,

O.75m+

Im 0 pI

(3.78)

It is almost identical to (a), the equation (3.78) is employed in the computer program to test whether a solution with no yield violation is possible. If yield violation occurs an appropriate reduction factor is imposed. In practice it was found that the reduction factor in the rigid region when yield violation occurred was less than the factor required in the plastic region of the vessel. That was also true for the rigid region of the nozzle.

3.8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The computations were carried out on the CDC 7600 computer at UMRCC (University of Manchester Regional Computer Centre) by using the Carroll's Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Technique (SUMI), which is a nonlinear optimization procedure to minimize a function subject to a set of constraints which may be nonlinear. The general description of the method is given in Appendix 1

87

Considering the maximum computer storage, the following values were chosen for the degrees of polynomials and trigonmetric functions: FN=FC=FV=4,Kl=K4=5andK2=K3=K5=K63. Hencethe total number of the variables including the pressure term p is equal to 152 in the x vector. The yield constraint was applied at 100 points in both the nozzle and vessel and 10 points in the crack. Finally, the yield function was evaluated at 399 points in both the nozzle and

vessel and 19 points in the crack to check if yield was violated. It was found that yield was violated at some intermediate points. Investigation of the output data showed that the yield violation was about 2% on average and occasionally up to 6%. If yield violation occurred a reduction factor of iffY (Y was the maximum value of the yield function Y' 7 among all of the points) was employed. The possible plastic regions in both the nozzle and vessel were estimated beforehand. The value of z 0 was usually a/2R + 3.5fE7 based on an extended elastic damping length and the angle

3 was

0.5 according to the shallow shell approximations.

Results have been presented for vessels with and without defects. Firstly, the limit pressures of vessels without defects are plotted against some geometric parameters and compared with the results obtained by Robinson (32). Fig. 3.8 shows graphs of p versus a/R for R/T 100 and

t/T = 0.5. The results are also listed in Table 3.1. The values of aIR are restricted to be less than and equal to 0.3 in order to meet the shallow shell approximations. Fig. 3.8 shows that the limit pressure decrease as the ratio of a/R increases. Variation of the limit pressure p versus t/T for a/R = 0.1 and R/T = 400 is presented in Fig. 3.9 and Table 3.2. The range of the parameter t/T was chosen to be 0.05 to 2.0.

88

It can be seen that the limit pressure p gradually increases with the increasing t/T as it must do. Fig. 3.10 shows the variation of the limit pressure p with the ratio R/T for aIR = 0.2 and t/T = 1.0. The results are also listed in Table 3.3. As shown in Fig. 3.10 the limit pressure decreases quite rapidly as the ratio of R/T increases. Also shown in Figs. 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 are the lower bound results obtained by Robinson (32). In general, the results coincide very well. The largest difference is about 15% for t/T = 0.05 in Table 3.2. The difference may possibly be due to (1) slightly different formulations and assumed values of p0 and between the two programmes as regards the Kirchhoff

inequalities. (2) in ref. (32) FN = FV = 3, whereas in the current work EN = FV = 4 which would normally allow a higher limit pressure to be obtained. Nevertheless, it is clear that the results of the present analysis are quite close to those of ref. (32). Although the geometries of the pressure vessels investigated are limited to only a few sets of parameters, it may be expected that good agreement will also be obtained for a wider range of geometric parameters. The limit pressures of vessels with defects are presented in Fig. 3.11 and listed in Table 3.5. Four typical geometric parameters considered here are listed in Table 3.4. It can be seen from Fig. 3.11 that the limit pressure decreases gradually as the' depth of the crack increases. For deep crack (11=o.2)the limit pressures are reduced by between 12.7% and 23.0% compared with the vessels without cracks('fl=.o ) . In general, the effect of the crack is not very significant on the limit pressure. This is possibly due to the fact that the criteria of crack development are not taken into account in the present analysis. In the theorem of the plastic limit analysis, failure of a structure is assumed to be dependent upon large zone unsteady plastic flow. Therefore, the results

89

of limit analysis may overestimate the actual load carrying capacity of the vessel containing a crack. However, for very ductile material, a large zone yielding often occurs at the front tip of the crack prior to crack propagation and hence the limit pressures obtained here may still be acceptable. In addition to the results presented above, the effect of internal crack was investigated and compared with the external crack of equal ligament thickness. The geometry of the vessel considered is No.3 and the results are plotted in Fig. 3.12 and listed in Table 3.6. It can be seen that the limit pressure p of the vessel with an internal crack is slightly higher than the vessel with an external crack of equal value of 1. Finally, the equilibrium forces and moments at the intersections (nozzle-crack and crack-vessel) are given in Figs. 3.13 and 3.14 for pressure vessel No.3 with a crack of

=o.6 . These forces and moments

are obtained from the x vector computed after the optimization and no reduction factor has been applied. Note that these forces and moments are only plotted for a quadrant of the intersection curves due to the symmetry of the vessel . It can be seen that the forces and moments at both the intersections match up very well throughout the whole of the intersection curves. The Kirchhoff inequality (3.76) requires estimates of the limit pressure

p 0 and the average tangential bending moment ii at the intersections.

Provided that the actual values are either larger or not much less than these estimates, it is felt that inequality (3.76) with \j=O.1 will be

satisfactory as it represents no more than 10% error. Otherwise the estimates of p 0 and 1i should be reduced, maintaining '/ at 0.1 . In practice, the initial value of p0 was 0.5 and it was found that variation

90

of p0 did not affect the final results significantly. The average tangential bending moment was assumed to be 1.0 and the outputs showed

that the magnitudes of the moments were quite close to the estimated value.

91

a! R

0,05

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.885

0.701

0.442

0.328

J [ref.(32)]

0.956

0.715

0.425

0.287

TabLe 3.1 Comparison of p with ref.(32) for different values of aIR (tlT=O.5, R/T=100).

Iti i
p

0.05

0.1

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.0

2.0

0.417

0.421

0.428

0.459

0.502

0.546

0.742

p [ref.(32)] 0.352

0.358

0.370

0.405

0.480

0.534

0.686

Table 3.2 Comparison of p with ref.(32) for different values of t/T(a/RO.1, R/TLOO).

RIT=
p

25

50

100

200

400

0.754

0.674

0.551

0.432

0.323

p [ref.(32)]

0.77 9

0.666

0.550

0.418

0.294

Tcib(e3.3 Comparison of p with ref.(32) for different values of RIT (a/RzO.2, t/T1.0).

- 92

No. 1 2 3

aIR
0.1

t/T
0.25

R/T
50

0.2

1.00

100

0.2

0.75

200

0.3

0.50

400

Table 3.4 Geometric parameters.

fl

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4

0.690

0.744

0.787

0.794

0.790

0.486

0.522

0.546

0.548

0.563

0.301

0.342

0.370

0.387

0.391

0.142

0.157

0.167

0.169

0.175

TabLe 3.5 The limit pressures for external cracks.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

p ( =+1 ) p ( -1 )

0.301

0.342

0.3 70

0.387

0 391

0.318

0.356

0.37 9

0.388

0.391

Table 3.6 Comparison of p for external and internal cracks. (pressure vessel No.3)

93

RIGID REGION

(a) SIDE VIEW

(b) END VIEW

PARALLEL TO AXIS OF VESSEL

Cc) PLAN VIEW

en'
__________Ue

et

er (d) INTERSECTION UNIT VECTORS IN SURFACE OF NOZZLE Ce) INTERSECTION UNIT VECTORS IN SURFACE OF VESSEL

Fig. 3.1 Cytinder-cyUnder intersection and basic vectors.

94

N z
N9

Qe

Me Nz Ne
k VLz

Fig. 3.2 Nozzle stress resultants and moments.

do
N re Nre

Nr

M M
08
N

Mr9

(Mr

MJ/Mre

Fig. 3.3 Vessel stress resultants and moments.

fNz

(outf pclper)
epapeJ

Fig. 3.L Intersection stress resultants and moments for nozzle.

95

I'

Fig. 3.5 Cylinder-cylinder intersection with a crack.

e" :z:
___L - ;-__ -

- - - -

- - -

-V V .-'j -- -

't

N
;-)'B

- - -

_N

N. N

Fig. 3.6 The forces and moments at the intersection of crack and vessel,.

96

---
-

----I I

L----1 __I

i
I - -

I -.--.-

oJer

qi1_ - -

v.er
-

>

Fig. 3.7 The movements of forces from the mid-surfcice of vessel ( ------- -) to the mid-surface of crack

97

1.0 VORI( 0.9 0.8 Q.7 p 0.6 0. 0. ' 0.3 0.2 0. 1 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.J0 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 (32)

a/R Fig. 3.8 Comparison of results for t/TzO.5,R/T1OO.

98

0.8 0.7 . -

0.6 .

:: 0.3 PRESENT WORK 0.2 k REF.(32) 0.0 0.00 -

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

t/T Fig.3.9 Comparison of results for a/R=O.1. R/T=4.00.

0.8 0.7

RESENT WORK

F. (32 ) 0.6 0.5 p 0.4 0.3 0.2 0. 1 0.0 0 50 100 1O 200 250 300 350 400

R/T Fig.3.1O Comparison of results for a/RO.2, t/T1.O.

99

1.0

0. 9

0. 6

0. 7

0. 6 p 0. 5

0. 4

0. 3

0. 2

0. 1

0. 0 0.0 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.

Fig.3.11 VciriQtion of Limit pressure p versus fractionciL ligament thickness q.

100

0. 50 0. 45 0. 40 0. 35 0. 30 p 0. 25 0. 20 0.15 0. 10 0. 05 0. 00 0. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. 8

-J

INTERNAL CRACK

V EXTERNAL CRACK

1.0

0 Fig. 3.12 Comparison of limit pressures for internal and external cracks. (pressure vessel No.3)

101
-1. 0 -1. -1.2 -1.3 -1. 4 m -1. S 0. 03 -1.6 0.02 -1.7 -1. 2 -1. 9 -2. 0 0
iS 30

0. 08 0.07 0. 06 0.05 0.04

0. 01 0. 00 -0. Ol 45 60 75 90 0 iS 30 45 60 75 90

9 deg

9 deg

0. 2

0.02 0.00 -0. 02

0. 10

0. 08 -0. 04 0. 06

f
0. 04

-0. 06 -0.08 0. 02 -0. 10 0.00 -0.12 -0. 14 -0. 16 0

IS 30

-0. 02

-0. 04 45
60

75

90

15

30

4S

60

iS

90

0 deg Fig. 3.13

deg

Boundary equilibrium stress resuLtants [see eqn. (3.67)1 and moments [see eqn.(3.70)lct the intersection of nozzle and crack for pressure vessel No.3 with q=O.6.

102

-0. 70 0.06 -0. 75 0. 05 -0. 80 0.04 -0. 85 0. 03

-0. 90 -0. 95 -1. 00 -LOS -1. 0 0 iS 30 45 60 75 90

0. 02 0.01 0. 00 -0. 01 -0. 02 0 5 30 45 60 75 9'

0 deg

0 deg

0. 00

0. 16 0. 14

-0. 02 0. 12 -0. 04 0. 10

ft
-0. 06 0. 08 0. 06 -0. 08 0. 04 -0. 10 0. 02 -0. 12 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0. 00 0 15 30 45 60 75 90

0 deg

e deg

Fig. 3.14 Boundary equi1ibrium stress resultants [see eqn. (3.69)] and moments [see eqn.(3.71)] at the intersection of crack and vessel for pressure vessel No.3 with q=O.6.

CHAPTER FOUR

1 03

CHAPTER FOUR PLASTIC LIMIT ANALYSIS OF A CYLINDER-SPHERE INTERSECTION WITH DEFECT Nomenclature

R R t h

ratio of inside radius of sphere to sphere thickness ratio of inside radius of cylinder to sphere thickness ratio of cylinder thickness to sphere thickness ratio of radical coordinate measured positive outward from inside surface, to sphere thickness ratio of axial coordinate in cylinder, to sphere thickness ratios of lengths in cylinder, to sphere thickness (see Fig. 4.1) meridional coordinate of sphere

zo , z i z2

meridional angle defining the position of the crack (see Fig. 4.1) meridional angle defining the intersection of sub-region I and II (or III) (see Fig. 4.2)

13

meridional angle defining rigid/plastic boundary in sphere ratio of crack thickness to sphere thickness (see Fig.4.1)

trTcr

ratio of shear stress to yield stress of material ratio of radial stress to yield stress of material ratio of meridional stress in sphere to yield stress of material

Go

ratio of hoop stress to yield stress of material,in the cylinder p is replaced by z in the notation for stresses. ratio of fully plastic limit pressure in a thick cylinder to yield stress

p0

IRc^t I R
ratio of fully plastic limit pressure in a thick sphere to yield stress

=2Ln()

104

o.y P p x

yield stress of material internal pressure dimensionless pressure vector of stress parameters

A nm, Bqv, A nm, Cnm,

Dqv, Cm L.qv , Unm, Fqv

(.IJ

independent variables of the stress vector

T U

average value of shear stresses on the boundaries average value of normal stresses on the boundaries error tolerance in boundary stress equilibrium

105

CHAPTER FOUR

4.1 INTRODUCTION The problem of evaluating the plastic limit pressure of a spherical vessel with a radial cylindrical nozzle under internal pressure has been studied for many years. Gill (7) derived lower and upper bounds for such a vessel by using the two-moment limited interaction yield surface which is an approximation of the Tresca yield criterion. Certain assumptions were made concerning the stress distribution and the deformation pattern. In particular the collapse mechanism was limited to a certain range of geometrical parameters. But the subsequent paper by Dinno and Gill (13) covered the complete range. Robinson and Gill (24) calculated a lower bound to the limit pressure of a flush oblique cylindrical branch in a spherical pressure vessel by using a non-linear programming method. The stress resultants were expressed in terms of an independent set of variables and the pressure was optimised subject to the yield criterion and junction equilibrium constraints. Dinno (14) carried out a lower bound analysis for evaluating the limit pressure of a pressure vessel consisting of a thick spherical shell and a thick radial cylindrical nozzle by using a three-dimensiOnal stress formulation. The von Mises yield criterion was used and the limit pressure was optimized using a non-linear optimisation procedure. To assess the failure of a pressure vessel with a defect, Goodall and Miller (46) in 1981 considered a sphere with a protruding cylindrical nozzle and with a partial penetration crack running round the junction of the sphere and cylinder. The solution was based on a lower bound analysis using an approximate interaction yield surface for a Tresca yield criterion. In general, this method can be adapted for either

106

external or internal crack with any value of depth: Miller (48) calculated an upper bound solution for the same geometry. Possible kinemati failure mechanisms were considered and the two-moment limited interaction yield surface was used. The results indicated that the lower bound solutions was slightly overstressed for deep cracks. Again Miller (47) considered this geometry in the case when the defect radius is greater than the nozzle radius. A lower bound to the limit pressure was obtained by using a linear programming method. Ewing (90) derived upper and lower bound collapse criteria for a single-edge-cracked plate subject to combined tensile and shear loading. As an application, a lower bound to the limit pressure was calculated for a nozzle-spherical shell intersection under internal pressure, with a circumferential flaw running round the junction. The limit pressure obtained was a little lower than the result previously calculated by Goodall and Miller (46) for the same geometry. The lower bound theorem of plasticity is used here to predict the limit pressure of a spherical shell with either flush or protruding cylindrical nozzle. The spherical shell has a partial thickness circumferential defect concentric with the cylinder. The geometry and associated defect are shown in Fig. 4.1 . In order to simplify the analysis, only an external crack is considered and its two sides are assumed to be in the axial and radial directions of the sphere. Fig. 4.2 shows the details of the geometry of such a crack. In practice, the crack will most likely be parallel to the outside surface of the nozzle. However, the assumed configuration of the crack will not affect the results seriously, since the removed material will cause virtually no loss of strength of the vessel. The vessel is divided into rigid and plastic

107

regions and again the plastic region is divided into six sub-regions for a vessel with a protruding nozzle. For each sub-region, we consider a three-dimensional stress formulation in terms of stresses rather than stress resultants. The yield condition used is the von Mises yield criterion of the material rather than a derived yield interaction condition between the stress resultants as in most thin shell analyses. Some of the stresses in the assumed plastic regions are expressed in terms of an independent set of variables and the remaining stresses are derived from the equilibrium equations plus boundary conditions. To maximise the pressure, a nonlinear optimization process is used with the constraint that the material yield criterion must not be violated anywhere in the vessel. The Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Technique due to Carroll (15) is adopted for the optimization. Since the analysis deals directly with stresses and the material yield criterion, it can be applied to vessels of any thickness in both tie cylinder and sphere. Results are presented for a limited range of geometric parameters of the vessels with different depth of crack.

4.2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS Fig. 4.1 gives the geometrical details of the pressure vessel with a crack to be analysed. The assumed shape of the crack has the great merit of making the problem simpler and is a reasonable approximation to reality. As shown in Fig. 4.1 the vessel is divided into rigid and plastic regions and again the plastic region consists of six sub-regions. It can be seen from Fig. 4.2 that there are three sub-regions 1,11 and III in the sphere. For a vessel without crack the sub-region II disappears. The plastic region of the cylinder is divided into sub-regions IV, V and VI. For a vessel with a flush nozzle, the sub-region VI disappears.

1 08

It should be noted that all of the boundaries between any two adjacent sub-regions are in the particular directions such as the radial direction r, the meridional direction por the axial direction z. Fig 4.3 defines the sign convention for stresses in both cylinder and sphere. A typical element and associated stresses at the junction of cylinder and sphere are presented in Fig. 4.2. The applied load is internal pressure and the stress system is axisymmetric. The problem contains four non-vanishing dimensionless stresses a, ci, ,a and T= -c in the sphere and correspondly Gr,O and r=crin the cylinder. For convenience, the spherical coordinate system (r,, B ) is used in the sphere and the cylindrical coordinate system (r,z,) in the cylinder. Now, we define a dimensionless pressure p and the lower bound theorem of plastic limit analysis states that p is less than the limit pressure if a set of stresses can be found which: (1) Satisfy the equilibrium equations at all points of the vessel and the boundary conditions on the stresses. (2) are in equilibrium with the applied load. (3) nowhere violate the yield criterion of the material. The object is to find the maximum value of p which satisfies the above requirements. First of all,a yield condition has to be postulated in terms of the stresses. It is assumed that the material obeys the von Mises yield criterion and therefore the following inequality is imposed:

3L

(4.1)

For an axisymmetric problem, there are four stresses and only two equations of equilibrium in both the cylinder and sphere. It follows

1 09

that there must be two independent stress functions. Experience showed that it is most convenient to postulate t.,(trin the cylinder) and Y in all of the sub-regions. The two independent functions are expressed in terms of a finite set of parameters x (including p) and are expanded as polynomials in the radial coordinate h, and as trigonometrical functions in the meridional coordinate pin the sphere, and as a polynomial in z in the cylinder. Once the independent functions have been defined, the remaining stresses o ( cy in the cylinder) and Ge can be derived from them using the equilibrium equations. The complete set of stresses is substituted in the yield criterion (equation (4.1)) and the yield function of a finite number of points in each sub-regions is evaluated. The yield functions at these points are used as a set of constraints in the optimfzation process. At the end of the process the yield function is calculated at a large number of points in each sub-regions. If yield is violated at some points, the vector x (including p) is divided by an approximate factor to make the yield function safe at all points. It should be noted that the stress continuity condition must be satisfied on all of the boundaries which include the boundaries between the rigid and plastic regions,the boundaries between any two adjacent sub-regions, the inside and outside surfaces of the vessel and the crack surfaces. Some of the boundary conditions are satisfied by choosing suitable stress functions and the others are satisfied by employing an inequality to limit the integral of the square of the difference in the stresses on either side of the boundary, to be less than some specified value. This inequality is also used as a constraint in the optimization process.

110

Now it is possible to perform the non-linear optimization and the procedure used here is based on Carroll 's Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Technique (15), together with Davidon's second order minimization method (91). Several computational points concerning this method can be found in the work by Box et al (89).

4.3 BASIC EQUATIONS 4.3.1 For the problem considered here it is convenient to work in the spherical coordinate system (r,O,) and the generalised equilibrium equations are given as follows: Or r I rO r ___ r

rce

cp

I- tiCf

'a1

Due to the axisymmetric conditions of the pressure vessel, the above eqiations can be considerably simplified by taking -t=C9=o and . Now let h be the radial distance measured from the

inside surface of the sphere and taken as positive in the outward direction, then the equilibrium equations become

(+k)c

(4.2) (4.3)

(R--k)s;p tr hr?Cp

111

where R is the dimensionless inside radius Of the sphere. A typical element within the shell thickness and the associated stress components are shown in Fig. 4.3. (a) Stresses in the rigid region In the rigid region of the sphere defined by icpc the shear stress is assumed equal to zero. The radial stress
5.

is assumed

to have a form similar to that which exists in a thick spherical shell at full plasticity due to internal pressure but of a reduced magnitude

gi-I

=_Z(n(

g^)

(4.4)

where p is the dimensionless pressure. From the equilibrium equations (4.2) and (4.3) we obtain

)I
(b) Stresses in sub-region I

(4.5)

As shown in Fig. 4.2 the plastic zone of the sphere is divided into three sub-regions. In the sub-region and
I

defined by

pt/ithe stresses

are expressed as follows:

,,51

V%SI

=
n
bM3

h)

5i

(4.6)

vs

'j= V3

g3+h I

(4.7)

112

In which Anm and Bqv are arbitrary variables which form part of the x vector. The above two expressions satisfy the following boundary conditions. (1) On the inside surface of the sphere,t.1,=o and (2) On the outside surface, and =z_2?

(3) On the rigid/plastic boundary, t,= and

(nRsi-I)/(R+h)]

which has the same form as expression (4.4). The stress distributions in the radial direction are expressed by polynomials and trigonometric functions are employed for the variation in the meridional direction. The choice of such expressions is also made for the sake of analytical simplicity in solving the equations of equilibrium. After defining the expressions (4.6) and (4.7), the remaining two unknowns can be derived by substituting for tand and cs

cr. in the equilibrium

equations (4.2) and (4.3). By eliminating c% from the equations of equilibrium the following equation is obtained in which only c3i is unknown,

os C
3Si

(Cricp) (R+i)sinp
(J'Cr

tp

(4.8)

Integrating this equation and substituting the boundary conditions at (p= for for which is given by equation (4.5), the expression

in sub-region I is therefore obtained. Since the manipulation

is quite simple but tedious, we only present the final result as follows:

.fl3

fl5

t_h)h (_-.i3

r1

12Sncf

rn

_k- 4-)

____

(m)

2rCf

c;

co_m rn L
(O5(2)

2(ni-z)
os(2)

2( m +2.)
_s v
t V3

Z(yn2)

2(m+2)

{[k_bt Bay

(h)

(h)ht 2 Si

I
(4.9)

<j si1(4 v CP--2 cp)

in(V-V*2(P) v+2

L ^h
From equation (4.2) we obtain

V-2

co

r3 qs
vs

rn_CP)]

S
V:3

+)k)(+h)in vv)

2(k)hi(vv

(4.10)

114

(c) Stresses in sub-region II In theory, the plastic region of the sphere can be divided into two sub-regions by putting

1=

(see Fig. 4.2). However, the boundary along

which the Kirchhoff inequality is to be applied (see section 4.4) will become very long and the equilibrium inequality can hardly be applied. To reduce the length of the boundary, the sub-region II is defined by

a. ,

in which

(J)

is a fractional angle of

(P- a) .

In

practice, we put

=O.2x(3-a).
c . J in this region are postulated to have

The stresses trip and the forms fl52 YYZ

(4.11)
rr3

=i v3

cth)h . (

4.12)

which satisfy the following boundary conditions: (1) On the outside surface of the sphere,

zj

(2) On the boundary CF(see Fig. 4.2), . Integrating equation

which is one side of the assumed crack, tr = O

(4.8) and substituting the boundary condition at (J2=c& for which the following expression for 5 vs is obtained.

c=
t V3

Bh'[2b(th) (R+h) C

h)]

- I (n(V 4.(y-z) -

pv) Sin(V 2-

I )) h

cos (i)

115

nS2 fl=I py3 p"Rrn (-k)

m[4)

m0S(0)]
fl52 m52

+
fl52. ms2.

(Lh)

[Icos(pm)]

A (-h)
=-t m3

[n(h)-4(J--h)]x[_1- oS(m+imX)
( ni+ i)

--(-2P--m&)+

--coS(mcp-m)
(4.13)

-
From equation (4.3) we obtain
9.5 VS

B (
V3 fl52.. ms2.

k)h1 (-h-h)

Sin-)

+I

A'

(h)

(m)

rt=( rfl=3

5ir(p

^mcos(jncp-m)J
(4.14)

+2r+2O,- 0
It should be noted that the stresses and

must satisfy

the stress continuity conditions across the boundary AB between the sub-region I and II (see Fig. 4.2). To meet these requirements, an overall inequality which is an integral of the squares of the differences of stresses on either side of the boundary is stipulated to be less than some specified value. Similarly, the inequality will be also applied to the boundary BC between sub-region II and III. It should also be

116

noted that the expression (4.12) of

is exactly the same as in

sub-region I. The advantage will be seen in the following analysis.

(d) Stresses in sub-region III In this region, we use exactly the same formulae as in sub-region I. Therefore the stress equilibrium at the boundary BG of sub-region I and III is automatically satisfied. On the inside surface of the sphere, those formulae give trp 0 and For a vessel without

crack the sub-region II disappears and those expressions give t=To For the vessel with a crack, since the expression of as in sub-region I and II, the equilibrium of stress is the same

o.

on the boundary

BC of sub-region II and III is obviously satisfied. But the equilibrium of shear stress can only be achieved by imposing an inequality as

applied on the boundary AB. Similarly, such an inequality will also be employed on the boundary CD between the nozzle and sphere.

4.3.2 For the cylindrical nozzle, it is convenient to work in a cylindrical coordinate system and the equilibrium equations are given by

20r 21'

t+rfQ Y

r9(

___
2. r

r r ,

+ C 1
=

9 -

to

117

A typical element within the shell thickness and the associated stress conventions are shown in Fig. 4.3. Since the pressure vessel considered here is axisymmetric about its revolution axis, so we have
eC %9

=-r

==O ,

0 and the above

equations can be simplified as follows:

(Ph) CRh)

to+(R+k) C.

_-= 0

(4.15) (4.16)

+r

Rh)

where Rc is the dimensionless inside radius and h the dimensionless radial coordinate.

(a) Stresses in the rigid region The rigid region of the cylinder is defined by 10 in Fig. 4.1. In this region we put tr0 and is assumed to have a distribution

similar to that in a thick cylinder at full plasticity due to internal pressure but of a reduced magnitude. Therefore
?OS I_ :--

I(R*t)
R-h

(4.17)

From the equilibrium equation (4.15) we obtain

0- = o

i-P

Pos

[i In ___ ___

(4.18)

Further, we assumed that

is a function of h only and given by

o- = _j_.
vf

Pos [i 2J( ct\ ____ F-th )f2.

)'Q

(4.19)

This stress balances the pressure end load

7C

118

(b) Stresses in sub-region IV The plastic sub-region IV of the cylinder is defined by the following expressions for -c
tiC mc.4.

and

are assumed.

C
fl( mt
'3C4 v(.4

t- h) h

(.2O)

___ r0

=I vo The choice of

(R..k1I

R.21)

satisfies the boundary conditions at the inside and =

j

outside surfaces of the nozzle (

) as well as at the rigid/plastic

boundary ( 1=O ). The pressure term in the equation (4.21) of specifies a distribution which is similar to that in a plain cylinder at full plasticity but of a reduced magnitude. A polynomial variation with r-espect to z is adopted for tr and flexibility in these functions. In this region tr is given by equation (4.20). Substituting in equation (4.16) and noting the continuity condition on rigid region at z = 0 leads to: with the which provides considerable

=I :ic (
tiC4-

rTC4

_____

1p

) n&'-i+iTh +

n (-h)

1i"

R e -i-h

1(1)
(4.22)

r0

D -z

Solving equation (4.15) gives

flC4 4 r
ti pn= C- )

q c4
_(

V4. [1t'-()

h] (R)t()

VO

119

+ ) p

[ Poc-

R-t
___

(4.23)

(c) Stresses in sub-region V The sub-region V of the cylinder is defined by Fig. 4.1. We assume the following expressions for
YiC.5 mc flC- mC4-

. and

in

f%I nm

n=I m 105 Vc5

h (
-

+
n=i biI

Cnm

t-h) (4.24) (4.25)

=
t

'Io

rr

in which

and

represent two further sets of variables in the satisfies the boundary condition ) as well as the continuity

x vector. The equation (4.24) of

at the inside surface of the cylinder ( -rj .=

condition at the boundary HC between sub-region IV and V. The equation (4.25) of

Cr satisfies

the boundary condition at the inside surface of

the cylinder, i.e., The remaining stresses and are obtained by solving

the equilibrium equations (4.15) and (4.16). Noting the continuity conditions on with the sub-region IV at and integrating

equation (4.16) gives

flC5mc.

n::.I
flc4 nc4-

( --_o-' (_ +(
1k

fl-i,

n+

t1 \
___

th)

n=t

::i CY M
i

ni2
O( I

[nt_h)^]
___

Zi- ( --+h)

(4.26)

120

Solving the equilibrium equation (4.15) gives

1c5-

mc5

m1
"cc

:I

V=O

'1

(4.27)

(d) Stresses in sub-region VI For the vessel with a protruding nozzle, we define the sub-region VI by chosen as follows: nc6 mc.6
rt=I
yl=

Fig. 4.1. The expressions of t

and

are

rn

cth)h)
0

(4.28)

q_c

VC.6

(4.29)
The equation (4.28) gives =o at the inside surface El, outside surface DJ and the lower end of the nozzle IJ in Fig. 4.2. The equation (4.29) gives -

pp

p/3,

at both the inside and outside and

surfaces of the nozzle. So far the boundary conditions for

are satisfied except at the boundary ED between the sub-region V and VI. Integrating equation (4.16) and taking IJ (i.e. leads to

pp I los

at the boundary

nC6
-

r11C

()tI

(' I'

rI

Yrl=l

[nt_h)h^(Th] (m+
Re-i-h

_______ _________

_j206

(4.30)

121

Solving the equation (4.15) gives q

VC6

1= J=O

hC mc +
fl

CII
=l

CR)t-)k m(

(.31)

4.4 JUNCTION EQUILIBRIUM As shown in Fig. 4.2 a cracked vessel with a protruding nozzle is divided into rigid and plastic zones and again the plastic zone consists of six sub-regions. At some boundaries, such as BG of sub-region I and III and HC of sub-region IV and V, the stress continuity conditions are automatically satisfied by the stress expressions derived above. But for the boundaries AB, BC, CD and DE in Fig. 4.2, the stress equilibrium conditions can only be achieved by employing an overall inequality constraint which bounds the error of the equilibrium stresses to any specified accuracy. At the boundary AB, the equilibrium conditions are required for the stresses trp and on either side of the line AB. It may be and in

noted that there will be discontinuities of stresses

between sub-region I and II but clearly this is permissible. Exact agreements of the stresses and at all points of the boundary

AB is impossible since the stresses depend on only a finite number of parameters. To satisfy the boundary conditions to a certain tolerance, an acceptable approach is to determine the sum of the squares of the differences between these stresses along the boundary AB and to stipulate that this must be less than some fraction y of the average stresses.

122

An equilibrium inequality for the shear stresses can therefore be written as:

R.32)
0

For the stress

we have

2s<

o
where

S)
and and and

(4.33)

Sb

is the length of boundary AB, and

are the

stresses in the sub-region I of the sphere given by equations (4.6) and (4.9) along the boundary AB. Similarly i sub-regions II along the same boundary AB. are defined for are the aver ge

stresses across the boundary, which are not easy to be evaluated theoretically. In the present analysis, we assume that and equals 0.1

equals 1.0 which are suitable for most of the problems. For a

vessel without crack, the boundary AB disappears and the inequalities (4.32) and (4.33) do not apply. At the boundary BC, a similar approach is adopted and the equilibrium stresses to be satisfied are only The continuity condition of the stress the expressions for on either side of the line BC. is already satisfied since

in the adjacent sub-regions II and III are

exactly the same. Hence we have the following inequality

S
( 10

bc.

(fl2 a <S()2

(4.3L

123

For a vessel without crack, the above inequality does not apply since the boundary condition on the outside surface of the sphere is satisfied by the equation (4.11) of At the boundary CD, the stresses in the sub-region III of the sphere are expressed in the spherical coordinate system, which have to be transformed into the cylindrical system in order to match the stresses in the sub-region V of the nozzle. Details of the junction geometry and stresses are shown in Fig. 4.2 and the geometrical relations are given by

OM=
tcnc

For any point on the boundary CD fiven by z, the corresponding values of (f and

in the sphere can be determined by the use of the

above two equations.

t^t)f(Rt C- /

o_

(4.35)

-R (4.36)

Considering the equilibrium of an element shown in Fig. 4.2, the stresses and acting on the plane parallel to the boundary CD

can be obtained as follows:

.= 2

(4.37)

(4:38)

124

The equilibrium inequalities for the boundary CD can therefore be written by

s ( (; -)a <S c4

(4.39) (4.40)

(
0

) dS <

Sa

At the boundary DE, the equilibrium inequalities for the stresses and are as follows:
Sie ( ,

rTr) d<

Sc

(441)

e (-
0

)d<

(4.42)

For a flush nozzle, the sub-region VI disappears but the above two inequalities still apply. This implies that the stresses on sub-region V have to be in equilibrium with the internal pressure on the boundary DE. In this case, we simply put

= 0

and O

in which p is

an estimate for the dimensionless limit pressure. The above seven inequalities (4.32) to (4.34) and (4.39) to (4.42) are used as part of the constraints in the optimization process. In order to facilitate the application, it is convenient to combine those equations into one inequality by adding them together, although it may be less restrictive than using those inequalities separately. The difference will not be significant since the integrals must be positive. Now taking the value of equal to 0.1, equal to 1.0 and thus we obtain the

overall inequality as follows:

125

( S b I

f\

a2 1 2 I [(rT)II ^()]s+(

Sbc

()2ds

L/0
2

Jo ScLe

ScA
+ (

[(t)^()

]ds+)
0

[(-)

)2]

as < Lot S0- Sk

(.43)

where

is the total length of the boundaries AB, BC, CD and DE. -' is selected to be 0.1. At the end of the solution

The value of

the stresses on either side of the boundaries are evaluated and printed out as a check on the accuracy.

4.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The aim of the present work is mainly to investigate the effect of the crack on the dimensionless pressure p of a cylinder on a spherica vessel . To demonstrate the effect, three typical sets of geometric parameters which are listed in Table 4.1, with different depth of the crack, were considered. Figs. 4.4 and 4.5 give the limit pressure p against the ligament thickness ratio T are also listed in Table 4.2. The computations were carried out on the CDC 7600 computer at the UMRCC (University of Manchester Regional Computer Centre) by using the Carroll's Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Technique (SUMI), which is a non-linear optimization procedure to minimize a function subject to a set of constraints which may be non-linear. The general description of the method is given in Appendix 1. Firstly, a guess must be made as to the extent of the plastic region for each parameter. The results

130

No.

R5

R
10.0

t
0.75

(rad.)
0.6

Z 0 Z-Z1
5.5 5.0

50.0

2 3

21.7

3.44

1.15

0.6

4.0

105.0

12.9

0.66

0.6

7.0

31.5

TabLe 4.1

Geometric parameters.

0.2 No.1 No.2 No.3

0.242

0.4
0.344

0.6
0.419

0.8
0.498

1.0
0.561

0.292

0.432

0.476

0.555

0.640

0.367

0.469

0.537

0.612

0.626

Table 4.2

Limit pressures.

127

increasing number of variables. The 186 variables are nearly the maximum number we could use in the CDC 7600 computer. The number of yield constraint points used was dependent on the behaviour of the stresses and of the yield function in each of the plastic sub-regions. If high order polynomials and harmonics are used then the yield function can have rapid variation in the plastic sub-regions, and more constraint points will have to be imposed. In general, relatively more constraint points were put in the sub-regions II, III and V since the yield function changes quite rapidly near the crack tip and the junction between the nozzle and the sphere. In each sub-region, the von Mises yield criterion was imposed at a grid of points which were uniformly distributed along the radial and meridional directic in the sphere and along the radial and axial directions in the cylinder. For the geometric parameters considered here, we used 7 x 17 = 119 constraint points in the sub-region I, 5 x 6 = 30 points in II, 7 x 6 = 42 points in III, 7 x 9 63 points in IV, 7 x 5 = 35 points

in V and 7 x 9 = 63 points in VI. The total number of the yield constrai points is equal to 352. It was found that the yield function was violate at some intermediate points. Therefore, as the end of the optimization process the yield function was evaluated in all of the sub-regions at a large number of points. We used 13 x 5 = 325 points in sub-region I, 13 x 11 = 143 points in II and III, 13 x 17 = 221 points in IV, 13 x 9 = 117 points in V and 13 x 7 = 221 points in VI. The total number of points is equal to 1170. If the yield value is larger than 1.0 at some 0-f these points, the value of p obtained from the optimization process needs to be reduced by a factor of

1/[Y (Y is the maximum value

128

of the yield function among the 1170 points) to ensure that yield was not violated at any of these points. The results showed that for most of the geometric parameters yield was violated by up to 10 per cent, and in a few cases, even up to 20 per cent. But the reductions factor must not be lower than 0.9 for an acceptable result. If the reduction factor is less than 0.9, the number of constraint points should be increased to give a finer grid. However, this is also limited by the computer storage and the computing time. The 352 constraint points were nearly the maximum with the computer we used. The dimensionless pressure p is plotted versus the ligament thickness ratio 'Ti in Fig. 4.4 and Fig. 4.5. It can be seen that the pressure i decreases quite rapidly as the depth of the crack increases. It implies that the limit pressure p is fairly sensitive to the crack depth. For the deepest crack ( 1z0.2) in the geometry No.], the limit pressure p ' is reduced by 56.9% compared with '1=1.0 . For geometry No.2 and No.3, the pressure reduced by 54.4% and 41.4% respectively. For geometry No.3, the results have been compared with the predictions by Goodall and Miller (46) and plotted in Fig. 4.5. It can be seen that the results of the present analysis are rather lower than ref. (46). For vessel No.2, the limit pressures have been calculated by another researcher (C.S. Lim, private communication) using the thin shell formulation. His dimensionless limit pressures are 0.753 for
'1

1.0 and 0.683 for

'1

= 0.4 , which

are 17.7% and 58.1% higher than the corresponding results with the present analysis. So far, a big discrepancy is found from the above comparisons. In general, the results by the present analysis may not be very satisfactory. This is possibly due to:

129

(1) Difficulty in satisfying the boundary equilibrium conditions since the total length of the boundaries is quite long and possibly higher order polynomials are necessary. (2) Difficulty in generating enough variables to approximate the actual stress field since the computer storage is limited. Further investigations including the finite element method and experimental work are given in the next two chapters and more discussion will be made later. At the end of the optimization, the stresses on either side of the boundaries AB, BC, CD and DE are calculated and plotted in Fig. 4.6. Good agreement can be seen from the plots for most points of those boundaries. The assumed values of(O.l) and (1.0) are slightly

overestimated compared with the values calculated after the optimization process. But they were not revised in the later computations since the boundary conditions were satisfied very well. Different values of the error tolerance 'Y have been tried and it is found that the limit pressure p decreases to some extent when a small value of Yi<o.1)is selected.

130

No. 1 2 3
J
50.0

R
10.0

t
0.75

13(rad.)
0.6

Z 0 Z2-Z1
5.5 50

21.7

3.44

1.15

0.6

4.0

105.0

12.9

0.86

0 6

7.0

31

TabLe 4.1

Geometric parameters.

0.2 No.1 No.2 No.3

0.242

0.4
0.344

0.6
0.419

0.8
0.49 8

10
0 561

0.292

0.432

0.476

0 555

0 640

0.367

0.469

0.537

0.612

0626

Table 4.2

Limit pressures.

131

Fig. 4.1

A cylindrical nozzle in spherical vessel.

132

Fig.L.2 Plastic sub-regions and junction stresses.

k
:30
- 4.

(p

(-V. 4 tjr I.

(.)z
CYLINDER SPHERE

Fig.4.3 Sign convention for stresses.

133

0.3 0.? 0.6

0.5

p 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.i 0. J 0.0 .12 0.4 q 0.6 3.8

EIIIiII"
Vesse' No.2 Vesse' No.1

-______ 1.0

Fig. 4.4 Variation of the limit pressure p versus fractional ligament thickness ii.
.0 0.9 0. 8 0.? 0. 6 p 0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2 Present work 0. 0. 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 n 0.6 0.6 -J
I I

-4

I Ref.(46)

1.0

Fig. 4.5 Comparison of the limit pressures for pressure vessel No.3.

1 34

0. 13 0. 030 0. 05 -0. 002 0. 00 -3. 05

In (1 ci)

-0. 004

-0. 10

IA (A 'I)

-0. 006

' -0 1
U)

-0, 00
(A

-0. 20 -0. 25 z

-0 010
ci,

-0.012

Region
-0.014

-0. 35 -0. 40

-0.016

Region I
L_-_________________

-0.45 -0. 50

(a) Boundary BA

0. 030

-0. 004

U)

tn -0. 008 ci)

U)

I-

-0. 012

ci) -c
If)

-0.Olo

Region

II

-0. 020

/ Ill
-0. 024

(b) Boundary CB Fig. 4.6 The shear and normal stresses on both sides of the boundaries for vessel No.1 with rO.8. (cortinued on next page)

135

0, 12

- 0.55 0.50

0.10
In

Regiop Ill

0.45 0. 40 ci,
If)

in 0.08
L

II'

in

Region V
0.06 O.2s( / 0. 04 Z0201/ 0. 15 0. 02 0. 10 0. 05 0 3) - --- - -- --.-------- - -- 0. 00 -.

a' U)

(c)

oundary CD

0. 00 -0. 05

0. o 0. S 0. 4

Region V

-0. 10
U) LI)

0. 3
LI) In

a,

a,

0.2

-0.15
L If)

11)

0.1 0.0

//

Regi
-0. 20 -0. 25 -0. 30 -0. 35

o -0. 1 z -0. 2 -0. 3

E I-

/;/: ////
gon VI

/-. Region 1I E
-0.6

L
E D

(d) Boundary ED Fig.4.6 (continued).

CHAPTER FIVE

136

CHAPTER FIVE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD APPLIED TO A CYLINDER-SPHERE INTERSECTION WITH DEFECT

5.1 INTRODUCTION In industrial practice, failure of a pressure vessel is often caused by a defect especially when the defect is located at a high strain region such as the intersection of a nozzle and sphere. As a general study using the nonlinear finite element approach, an axisymmetric cylinder-sphere pressure vessel with either flush or protruding nozzle under internal pressure is considered. The vessel has a circumferential partial penetration crack in the sphere, concentric to the nozzle, running around the intersection of the sphere and nozzle. According to the results for cylinder-cylinder analysis presented in Chapter Three, the limit pressure caused by an external crack is lower than an internal crack with the same ligament thickness ratio (see Fig. 3.12). Hence

for the sake of simplicity only an external crack is taken into account in the following analysis, since it is usually the worse situation to cause failure of a vessel under internal pressure.
A nonlinear finite element program called NONSAP held in the UMRCC

(University of Manchester Regional Computer Centre) is used to assess the failure of the vessels with defects of varying depth. The prograni
NONSAP can perform either material nonlinear only analysis or in addition

geometrically nonlinear analysis. The output consists of the stresses at the integration points of each element, the associated yield value, and nodal displacements. A load-displacement curve of a point at the intei-section may be taken to characterise the overall nonlinear behaviour of the shell and used to determine the failure load of the vessel. It will be of interest to compare the results with those obtained from

137

plastic limit analysis and experimental investigation.

5.2 NONSAP The computer program NONSAP was written by Bathe et al (83) in 1974 and is now available on the CDC 7600 computer at UMRCC. NONSAP is a nonlinear finite element structural analysis program for both static and dynamic analysis of complex three-dimensional systems. This program is mainly used to solve nonlinear problems, but naturally, can also be used for linear analysis. The structural systems to be analysed may be composed of combinations of a number of different finite elements such as 3D truss, 2D plane stress and plain strain, 2D axisymmetrical shell or solid, 3D solid and 3D thick shell . The program NONSAP can be used to solve material nonlinear only problems if the deformation of the structure is assumed to be infinitesimal. It can also be used for large geometrical nonlinearities due to large displacements and large strains. The total Lagrangian and updated Lagrangian formulations have to be used if the effect of change of geometry is included in the analysis. The material models presently available are: (a) for the truss elements: (1) linear elastic, (2) nonlinear elastic (b) for the 2D elements: (1) isotropic linear elastic, (2) orthotropic linear elastic, (3) Mooney-Rivlin material, (4) elastic-plastic material (von Mises or Drucker-Prager yield conditions), (5) variable tangent moduli model, (6) curve description model (with

138

tension cut-off). (c) for the 3D elements: (1) isotropic linear elastic, (2) stress-strain curve description model. A full description of the material models mentioned above is given in reference (83). The numerical technique employed in the program is based on an incremental solution of the equations of equilibrium with the Wilson or Newmark time integration scheme (see refs. (92) and (93) for details). For nonlinear static anal-ysis, damping and mass effects are neglected. During the step-by-step solution the linear effective stiffness matrix is updated in preselected load steps to form the current tangent stiffness matrix. In order to increase the accuracy of the solution, equilibrium iteration may be performed in each load step. The interval of load steps can be defined in the input data to the program NONSAP. For detailed information on the formulation of the continuum mechanics equations, the finite element discretization, and the solution procedure used see reference (83). Since all of the formulations required for nonlinear finite element analysis are implemented in the procedure NONSAP, it only remains to prepare input data for the description of the nonlinearities of the structure. The major portions of the input data preparation consist of discretization of the given structure into a suitable mesh using well defined elements connected at node points, the node and element numbering, the tabulation of coordinates, the boundary conditions, the load curve and the load distribution to the corresponding nodes. All of these input data can be read and generated by the program NONSAP. The generated information can be printed out for further checking.

139

5.3 STRUCTURAL MODELLING 5.3.1 U-notched Defect The nonlinear finite element analysis is performed for an axisyrnmetric pressure vessel containing a circumferential partial penetration crack in the sphere around the intersection of the sphere and nozzle. It is well known that when a structure colitains a crack a stress singularity exists at the crack tip. The application of finite element methods may produce serious errors when the crack tip is modelled by ordinary elements. Usually, it will be better to develop a special element to represent the crack tip singularity using fracture mechanics formuation. However, this type of element suitable for crack tip anal ysi s is not available in the program NONSAP and the program held in UMRCC is not allowed to be modified by the user. It becomes neGessary to consider an alternative approach. Neglecting the crack propagation possibility due to the local stress and strain state at the crack tip, an improvement in the accuracy of computational results can be achieved by modifying the crack by a U-shaped notch and a finer mesh surrounding the bottom of the U-notch. As seen in Fig. 5.1 the bottom of the notch is a semi-circle with a certain radius. The depth of the notch is defined to be measured in the radial direction of the sphere although the two sides of the notch are parallel to the axial direction of the vessel. The width of the notch is equal to the diameter of the semi-circle to give a smooth connection. Due to great gradnt of the stress distribution at the vicinity of the notch bottom, finer mesh and high order integration points in an element are used to improve the accuracy. For detailed element discretization see next section. This simple modification by taking a U-notched defect as a representation of a crack will not produce unacceptable error. The

140

effect of cracks in a structure on the vessel behaviour depends also on the material response. For brittle materials, the sensitivity of cracks is often estimated by the application of linear elastic fracture mechanics. Indeed, the crack may start to propagate under quite low stresses. However, for structures made of ductile material the application of linear fracture mechanics may result in erroneous failure predictions. For ductile materials, the fracture process will be characterised by a large amount of plastic deformation around the crack front before the crack starts to propagate. In this case, the effect of crack tip singularity may contribute little to the failure of the whole structure. The failure criterion eventually depends on the overall state of stress and strain which is influenced by the defect size, the structural geometry and loading conditions etc.

5.3.2 Shell Discretization A pressure vessel is discretized by a set of 2D axisymmetric continuum elements which are quadrilaterals with a minimum of 6 and maximum of 8 nodes. All of the nodes are positioned at the corners and/or the middle of the sides of the quadrilaterals. Two typical elements are shown in Fig. 5.2. Fig. 5.1 shows an assembly of 43 elements which represent the pressure vessel with a U-notch of q = 0.6. The total number of nodal points of this structure is 206. For a spherical pressure vessel with a radial cylindrical nozzle, the structural discretization must be discribed in the Cartesian Y,Z plane. The global Z-axis is the axis of revolution. The nodal point data consist of the global Y,Z coordinates of each node and the codes of nodal degrees of freedom. As the input data to program NONSAP, the

141

nodal coordinates may be defined by either the Cartesian (x,Y,Z) system or the cylindrical coordinate system (r,6,z). For convenience, the cylindrical system is used for nodes located in the sphere. The Cartesian system is used for the cylinder. The data is read by the program NONSAP and transformed to the global Y,Z system before the program is executed. Generally, a finite element node can have at most three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom corresponding to the global X,Y,Z coordinate system. For axisymmetric problems all nodes are located in the Y,Z plane and only those for the V and Z translational degrees of freedom need to be defined. Each node has two active degrees of freedom which are compatible with the elements connected to that nodal point. The other four degrees of freedom are non-active. It should be noted that the nodal degrees of freedom are only associated with the global Y,Z coordinate system even if the cylindrical coordinate system has been used. The final system equilibrium equation numbers are only related to all active degrees of freedom. The equations concerned with non-active degrees of freedom have to be deleted. In NONSAP, node numbers are required to range from 1 to the total number of nodes consecutively. In order to reduce the width of the non-zero element band in the structural stiffness matrix, the node numbers must be arranged in such a way that the difference between any adjacent nodes is made as small as possible. The node numbers are firstly marked from the inside surface of the vessel to the outside surface for each layer of nodes across the wall thickness. The first three nodes are located at the fixed boundary of the sphere. The node number increases along the meridional direction to the intersection and then from the

142

lower end of the cylinder to the top end of the cylinder layer by layer. The maximum node humber which is equal to the total number of nodes is therefore located at the top end and on the outside surface of the nozzle. In the current version of the program NONSAP all finite elements are isopararrietric elements, which have been proved to be quite efficient. The numerical integration orders of an element are 2,3 or 4 which correspond to 4,9, or 16 integration points respectively. Each integration point can be regarded as a representative of material in the vicinity of that point. If necessary, improvement in accuracy can be achieved by using high order integration points in some elements. Usually an integration order of 2 is sufficient for rectangular elements. If the element is distorted or located in a zone with high stress gradient, an integration order of 3 or 4 needs to be used. Fig. 5.2 shows two typical elements with 9 and 4 integration points respectively, which are used in the present analysis. It is noted that the U-notched defect at the intersection presents a sudden discontinuity in geometry, thereby inducing very high stresses near the defect. These high stresses decay within a small zone away from the defect. It is desirable to use relatively small elements in the region close to the defect in order to monitor these high stresses and their gradients. The element mesh may get coarser away from this region as the stress gradients diminish. The size of elements influences the convergence of the solution directly. If the size of the element is small, the final solution will be expected to be more accurate. However, more computational time will also be required. To achieve reasonable accuracy with low computing cost, it is advisable to define

143

different zones in the shell to give different levels of discretization. As shown in Fig. 5.1, relatively small elements have been used around the bottom of the U-notch. Away from the zones near U-notch, there is only one layer of elements in the sphere. The integration order of 3 has been selected for the elements near the defect and 2 for other elements. Another consideration due to geometric discontinuity is that the plastic deformation is expected to be limited to a zone near the intersection. In order to use the program NONSAP more efficiently, it is necessary to divide all of the elements into linear and nonlinear element groups linear elements are used to represent those regions which are assumed to behave elastically during the whole loading steps. The linear stiffness matrices of those elements are formed only once and stored in the computer. Neither geometric nor material nonlinearities are considered in the solution process. Two linear element groups are therefore defined near the fixed boundary of the sphere and the top end of the cylinder respectively. Four nonlinear element groups are defined in the sphere and cylinder near the intersection. Their stiffness matrices are recalculated at every solution step based on the conditions known at the end of the previous step. If geometric nonlinearities due to large displacements and large strains are considered, all of the element groups are defined as nonlinear element groups.

5.3.3.

11_91

The material model used in the present analysis is elastic-plastic obeying the von Mises yield criterion. The Young's modulus E and

144

Poisson's ratio v define the initial linear elastic behaviour of the material, and the initial yield stress cJis obtained from a simple tension test. For material with linear isotropic strain hardening the tangential modulus Et needs to be defined. The value of Et is assumed to be zero if no strain hardening is taken into account. In the following analysis, we assume E 66180 MN/M 2 , v= 0.35, cr= 264 and Et = 0 which are used to simulate the behaviour of

materials with little strain hardening. The effects of strain hardenin are also investigated by taking different values of Et, e.g. Et = 3309 MN/M 2 and Et = 6618 MN/M 2 , which are respectively 5% and 10% of thevalue of the elastic modulus E.

5.3.4 Load Curve s is well known the loading in finite element analysis can consist only of concentrated nodal point forces and/or moments, i.e., all distributed body or surface loading must be transformed to nodal point loading prior to using the finite element program. Usually the concentrated nodal loads do not change directions as the structure deforms. In the program NONSAP, the external nodal loads are time dependent loads which are applied to a structure by means of a load function f(t) versus time t(i.e. time steps in application). However, for static analysis the inertia forces contribute nothing to the system equilibrium, damping and mass effects are neglected, therefore the time steps defined here are not used to perform step-by-step solution as would be done in dynamic analysis. It is only used as an equivalent "load step" or "loading increment".

145

To apply the program NONSAP in the present problem, the load function is defined as an elliptical curve with an axis as the time" t. The load function f(t) is defined as the applied internal pressure P which is increased with gradually reduced increment as the tirne" t increases. A typical load curve is presented in Fig. 5.3. At "timed zero, i.e the "time" of solution start, the load function f(t) must be set to zero when zero initial conditions are used (i.e. all vector components are initialized to zero at the 11tirne" of solutions start). The first applied load P 1 must be selected sufficiently small to cause the vessel to be stressed within the elastic limit. An upper limit max to the load is set beforehand to terminate the computation at this point. max is selected so that a large amount of plastic deformation

is expected at this pressure. After defining a load curve, the external load of a node corresponding to a degree of freedom can therefore be determined by a time function obtained from the load curve and a load multiplier. The load multiplier of a node in either V or Z direction is the concentrated loading component transformed from the internal pressure applied to an area surrounding that node in the internal surface of the vessel. As shown in Fig. 5.4, this area is defined to be one radian interval by two planes which pass through the axis of the vessel, and two circles which are concentric with the nozzle and pass through two mid-points to adjacent nodes. In the cylinder, the area

=2tRc(z)/2Tt=R(z)

in which (Az) is the distance between two mid-points to adjacent nodes. The load applied to this area is F = R (LZ ) P. It is the load component in the V direction, and obviously the load component in the Z

146

direct ion are

S equal to zero. Therefore the nodal load multipliers

FR(Z) F=O
In the sphere, the area

(s)=2Rsin(.9)cosO F=(AS)sP

in

which the angle Gand (AG) are presented in Fig. 5.4. The load applied to this area due to internal pressure P is

2Rsin(0)coseP
are F = F.cosO

The load components in Y andZ directions

and F = F. sinG respectively. Hence the

corresponding load multipliers are

F,=2Rsin(LxO)cos2O F=Rsin(e)sin(2O)
The end of the cylinder is supposed enclosed. The load applied to the closure by internal pressure is

RP/2

which may be transformed

to the nodes located at the top of the cylinder.

5.3.5 In general pressure vessel study, the stresses and strains at the region near the intersection of nozzle and sphere are usually higher than at other parts of the vessel. Hence, in applying the finite element method, we may simply define a region bounded by an angle

3 in

the

sphere and the length Zcin the nozzle (see Fig. 5.1), in which the finite element representation is applied. The other parts of the vessel are ignored and suitable boundary conditions are employed.

147

In the case of the nozzle, the situation is similar to a cylindrical shell subjected to edge loads. The effect of the edge disturbance induced on a cylinder by boundary loads decays at a very rapid rate. From the, observation of the work done by Rajkotia et al (94) and Bakhrebahet al (95), it is deduced that the stresses stabilise at a distance of 2.0 _2.8/1RcxTc). To monitor this condition in the present problem, four of the top end nodes are imposed to be fixed in the Y direction and the displacements in the Z direction are unconstrained. In the case of the sphere, we similarly define

f3(c&---p)/(1P) according

to the possible plastic extension from the junction (see ref. 24). The value of p must be estimated beforehand and the angle cC.is shown in Fig. 5.1. The above assumption is realised by defining a fixed boundary at 9=in the sphere. The boundary conditions assumed here will, influence the stress distributions near the top end of the cylinder and the fixed end of the sphere, since some extra bending moments will be produced at the two ends by the imposed nodal displacement constraints. However, since these boundary points are some distance from the intersection, the elastic-plastic behaviour in the region of the intersection is not significantly affected. In the program NONSAP, boundary condition codes can be assigned the value 0 or 1 which represents free displacement or fixed displacement respectively. Note that boundary condition codes always refer to.the global Y,Z Cartesian coordinate system even if the node happens to be located using the cylindrical coordinates. To model the boundary conditions in pressure vessel analysis, the boundary condition codes are taken as follows: The codes of the nodes located at the fixed end of the sphere

(O=)

are all assigned the value 1 in both Y and Z

148

directions. For the nodes located at the top end of the nozzle, the codes in V and Z directions are assigned the value 1 and 0 respectively. Note that the boundary conditions supplied to the vessel must be sufficient. Otherwise the final solution cannot be obtained from the system equilibrium equations. The maximum number of equilibrium equations is dependent on the total number of nodes in the vessel and the degrees of freedom for each node. As any loads applied to the nodes with fixed displacement are ignored, those degrees of freedom are removed from the final set of equations. Considering an example of the pressure vessel analysis shown in Fig. 5.1, there are 206 nodes. Each node has a maximum of 2 degrees of freedom. Three nodes at the fixed end of the sphere have 3 x 0 + 3 x 0 = 0 degree of freedom. Four nodes at the top end of the nozzle have 4 x 0 + 4 x 1 = 4 degrees of freedom. So the total number of degrees of freedom is (206 - 3 - 4)x 2 + 0 + 4 = 402. That is also the total number of system equilibrium equations.

5.4 DATA PREPARATION PROGRAM Before using the program NONSAP, a data preparation program named NONMESH (see Appendix 2) is written in FORTRAN IV to produce all of the input data required by NONSAP. The program NONMESH is written for a spherical pressure vessel with a flush or protruding cylindrical nozzle under static internal pressure. The wall thicknesses in both sphere and cylinder are assumed to be uniform. A circumferential U-notched defect located along the junction of nozzle and sphere is assumed. The program NONMESH covers some basic features, for example, once the geometry of a vessel and the number of elements are defined, the program will automatically produce an element mesh. The global nodal numbers and nodal coordinates will be

149

generated. The element data such as the element numbers, the number of nodes in that element and the node numbers to describe that element are also autornatically.caloulated. The "external" load which is the internal pressure in the present problem will be transformed to concentrated nodal loads in both Y and Z directions. Other requirements by NONSAP such as the type of nonlinear analysis, the element integration order, the applied load curve and material properties are all easily defined by means of the input data of NONMESH. A brief description of certain important names and implementations of the program NONMESH is given as follows: The geometric parameters specified by the program include: RS - sphere radius, TS - sphere wall thickness, RC - nozzle radius, TC - nozzle wall thickness, TT - the defect ligament ratio q. RU - the radius of the semi-circle bottom of U-notch, BE - the angle 13 in sphere, ZC - the length of nozzle above the intersection and ZP - the length of protruding part of nozzle. The type of nonlinear analysis is identified by NTYPE. If NTYPE is equal to 1, displacements and strains are assumed to be infinitesimal. If geometrical effects due to large displacements and large strains are considered, the total Lagrangian formulation is used in the analysis. In this case NTYPE must equal 2. The external load curve is defined by the minimum load P1, the maximum load PMAX and load steps NSTE. P1 is the load at the first step in the load curve. In order to obtain both the pre-yield and post-yield solution of the problem, P1 must be less than the load which causes the initial yield of the vessel. PMAX is specified by the user according

1 50

to the final range of solution required. If NTYPE is set to 1, the effects of changeof geometry are ignored, the value of PMAX must not be too high. Otherwise the solution will become unreliable due to serious distorted configuration. If NTYPE is equal to 2, PMAX may be allowed to have a slightly higher value to produce relatively large zone yielding. The load curve is designed according to the behaviour of the structure. Since the deformation can be considerably increased with a little incremental load after large zone yield occurs, the load is monotonically increased with gradually reduced increment in each load step. IPRI indicates the output printing interval within the whole load steps NSTE. For the present problem, all element groups. The number

of the elements are divided into seven

of elements in group 1 is defined by NS1 and

NS2. . Similarly, the number of elements in group II is defined by NS3 and NS4. In element group III there are 7 elements. In element group IV, there are 1 element for O<T)O.4,2 elements for and 3 elements for 0.8 <q

O.4<i)O.8

1.0 . In element group V, the number of

elements is determined by NP which may vary with the length of the protruding part of nozzle. Finally, NC1 and NC2 determined the number of elements in group VI and VII respectively. For element group I, II.... . VII, lORD), IORD2, ... IORD7 indicate the numerical integration order and IPS1, IPS2, ... IPS7 indicate results are required to be printed out. Material properties are defined by EE - Young's modulus, UM-Poisson's ratio, YO - yield stress in simple tension and ET - strain hardening modulus. If no strain hardening is considered, ET is set to 0.

if the

1 51

The program NONMESH is run on the CDC 7600 computer in UMRCC and the output is stored as a file name NONDA1 in the 1900 filestore. The file NONDA1 must be CATALOG ed to 7600 local file MYDA76 which is used as -the input data of the program NONSAP. The program NONSAP is accessed by calling the CCL (Central Computer Library) procedure NONSAP held in the system library PROCLIB. The optional parameter INPUT MYDA76 which is specified on the NONSAP procedure directs the program NONSAP to read data from the 7600 local file MYDA76. After the file MYDA76 has been read by NONSAP, it is able to check the data read and print all the generated data. This printout may be used to verify the input data made by the user. Finally, the results such as the displacements for defined node blocks, the stresses at integration points and yield values for elements required are printed.

5.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The computations were carried out on the CDC 7600 computer at UMRCC by using the program NONSAP. For convenience, we introdUce "NONSAP-I to represent the program NONSAP when material nonlinear only analysis is considered and "NONSAP-Il" for geometrically nonlinear analysis. Three typical geometries which are listed in Table 5.1 were investigated and the results, such as the effect of strain hardening, the effect of change of geometry and the effect of the crack on the plastic behaviour of the pressure vessels are presented and compared with the results of P.L.A. (plastic limit analysis in Chapter IV) and other researchers. To study the effect of strain hardening on the plastic behaviour of a structure, a typical geometry i.e. the pressure vessel No.1 (see Table 5.1) without crack was considered. The material used was assumed to be elastic-linear plastic. The elastic modulus E and Poisson's ratio V

152

were obtained from the initial elastic behaviour of a simple tension stress-strain curve, and the plastic modulus Et was defined as a tangent to the plastic region of this curve. Based on the material of aluminium alloy, we assumed that the elastic modulus E = 66180 MN/rn 2 , and the yield stress

vO.35

ci ,,=

265 MN/rn 2 . The plastic moduli Et were assumed

to be 3309 MN/rn 2 and 6618 MN/rn 2 which are 5% and 10% respectively of the value of elastic modulus E. The pressure-deflection curves of the pressure vessel with different values of Et are shown in Fig. 5.5. It can be seen that no difference can be found before the initial yield occurs. After the initial yield point, the pressure of the vessel made of strain hardening material is higher than that of the vessel with no strain hardening for the same deflection. The effect of change of geometry on the behaviour of pressure vessel No.1 without crack is shown in Fig. 5.6. The solid pressure-deflection curve was computed from NONSAP-I in which the deformation is assumed infinitesimal and the effect of change of geometry is completely ignored. The dotted curve is obtained from NONSAP-Il in which both the material and geometric nonlinearities are considered by using the total Lagrangian formulation. As shown in Fig. 5.6, the pressure-deflection curve obtained from NONSAP-Il is above the curve from NONSAP-I after the initial yield. The effect of the crack on the plastic behaviour of the pressure vessel is a main object to be investigated. The crack was modelled by a U-shaped notch with a semi-circular bottom, and the radius of the semicircle was selected to be 1/10 of the thickness of the sphere. Different values of the radius to thickness ratio from 0.05 to 0.2, were tried and the differences between the load-deflection curves of the vessel were negligible.

153

As shown in Figs. 5.7(a), 5.8(a) and 5.9(a), the pressure-deflection curves were plotted for the three typical geometries with different values of the ligament thickness ratio 1) . The vertical deflection was given by a dimensionless form d/T 5 in which d is the vertical displacement at the lowest point of the bottom of the U-notch and T is the thickness of the sphere. The limit pressure was defined as the maximum load from the pressure-deflection curve calculated by NONSAP-I. This definition is based on the fact that the pressure-deflection curve approaches asymptotically the limit load p if change of geometry and strain hardening are ignored. The limit pressures obtained from NONSAP-I, together with the results from P.L.A.,, a private communication from C.S. Lim, and Goodall et al (46) are listed in Table 5.2. As shown in Fig. 5.7(b), the limit pressure of the vessel No.1 is plotted against the ligament thickness ratio1 and compared with the results obtained from P.L.A.. The limit pressure computed from NONSAP-I is 19.8% higher than P.L.A. for fl = 1.0 and 123.8% higher for T 0.2 For vessel No.2, which has a flush nozzle, the results are plotted in Fig. 5.8(b) and similarly the differences are 37.8% for1= 1.0 and 106.1% for fl = 0.2. Lim calculated the lower bound limit pressures for vessel No. 2 with fl = 0.4 and

fl- 1.0

using a thin shell formulation.

Comparison with NONSAP-I shows that the limit pressure by Lim is 6.6.% lower for 11= 0.4 and 3.2% lover for 1= 1.0. Compared with P.L.A., it is 58.1% higher for fl = 0.4 and 17.7% higher for fl = 1.0. Fairly good agreement is found between the results from NONSAP-I and Lim. For the vessel No.3, the results from NONSAPd are 22.3% and 61.7% higher than P.L.A. form= 1.0 and 1= 0.2 respectively. The limit pressures by NONSAP-I are also compared with the results calculated by Goodall and

154

Miller (46) and very good agreement is found in Fig. 5.9(b). The above comparisons shows that considerable discrepancies between the results of NONSAP-I and P.L.A. exist especially for deep cracks. To justify the accuracy of the predictions by different methods, experimental work on an aluminium specimen of geometry No.2 with a circumferential groove instead of the U-notch has been conducted and presented in Chapter Six. Comparison has been made in more detail with the results obtained from the program NONSAP. So far the results obtained from NONSAP show that the effect of the crack on the limit pressure of the vessel appears to be insignificant unless ijis very small. This phenomenon may be due to the fact that no fracture criterion is taken into account in the program NONSAP, and therefore the plastic zone may be developed without bound. In practice failure usually occurs with a limited size of plastic zone located at the front tip of the crack. Hence the behaviour of the vessel predicted by NONSAP may not be reliable after large zone yielding takes place. To assess the real load carrying capacity of a vessel with more confidence, the two-criteria approach suggested by Dowling and Townley (39), including the failure criteria determined by the theory of fracture mechanics, is recommended.

155

No.
1

R5
50.0

T5
1.0

R
10.0

T
0.75 400

Z
10.0

Zp
5.0

67.5

3.11

10.7

3.56

30

25.0

105.0

1.0

12.9

0.86

400

31.5

31.5

TabLe 5.1

Geometric parameters.

fl
NONSAP No.1 P.L.A. NONSAP No.2 P.L.A. Urn's NONSAP No.3 Ref.(46) P.L.A.

0.1

0.2 0.548 0.242 0.610 0.292

0.4 0.597 0.344 0.760 0.432 0.710

0.6 0.622 0.419 0.812 0.476

0.8 0.647 0.498 0.854 0.555

1.0 0.673 0.561 0.878 0.640 0.850

0.549 0.554 0.367

0.679 0.705 0.469 0.537

0.742 0.756 0.612

0.765 0.778 0.626

TabLe 5.2 Comparison of limit pressures from NONSAP-I with P.L.A., Lim's and Ref.(46).

156 z

Fig. 5.1 Idealization of ci pressure vessel using two-dimensional cixisymmetric elements.

157

() AN ELEMENT WITH 8 NODES AND 9 INTEGRATION POINTS.

(b) AN ELEMENT WITH 6 NODES AND 4 INTEGRATION POINTS.

Fig. 5.2 Two typical isoparametric elements used for the pressure vessel discretization.

16 14

E
Z 12 10 8
6

0 a)
U) U)

U) L. 0.. 2 0 0 1

12

16

20

24

'time t Fig. 5.3 A typical Load curve applied in the program NONSAP.

' 158 z

0
0

Y
FRONT VIEW

M N

x
TOP VIEW

Fig. 5 L An cixisymmetric element in the sphere of ci pressure vesset.

159

0.9 w
U,

0.5 0.?

0.6

U)

f)0.

LU -J

Z Q4
0

(I)

0.3 00.2 0. I
fl_n

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.9

0:9

VERTICAL DEFLECTION AT INTERSECTION d/Ts

Fig. 5.5 The effect of strain hardening on the behaviour of pressure vesseL No.1. (NONSAP-i)

0.9
LU

"0.5
U) 'I)
LU

U) U)
-J z

wO.S

p0.4
U) z

00.2

0.1 0.0 0.0

'J

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.?

0.5
dIT

0.9

VERTICAL DEFLECTION AT INTERSECTION

Fig. 5.6 The effect of change of geometry on the behaviour of pressure vesseL No.1.

160

0.8

0.7 a:
Ui

D (I) U) Ui

0.6

0.5
(1) LI)

Ui 0.1. -j z 0

0.3 z
Ui

0.2

0.

0.0 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

3Q

VERTICAL DEFLECTION AT INTERSECTION

diT

(a) The pressure-deflection curves (NONSAP- I).

0.3
Ui

0.7
U) (I)

W 0.6

a. w -J z 0.4
0
U) (1) U)

0.5

z0.3
Ui

o 0.2 0. 1 0_fl 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 FRACTIONAL LIGAMENT THICKNESS

(b) Variation of the limit pressure versus fractional ligament thickness r and comparison with P.L.A.. FIG. 5.7 PRESSURE VESSEL No.1.

161

1.0 0.9 w :
U) if)

0.8

Lu0?
aj, 0.6
U)
Lii

0.5 0 z
Lu

0.4 0.3

a 0.2 0.
1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 dIT VERTICAL DEFLECTION AT I NTERSECTION

(a) The pressure-deflection curves (NONSAP-I).

1.0
Lu

0.9
U) "
Lu 'I -

08 0.?

U) U)
Lu -J z

0 U, z 0.4 w 0.3 NON SAP-I 0.2

0. 1 P.L.A.

0.0 0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.?

0.8

0.9

1.0

FRACTIONAL LIGAMENT THICKNESS

(b) Variation of the limit pressure versus fractional ligament thickness r and comparison with P.L.A.. FIG. 5.8 PRESSURE VESSEL No.2.

162
0.Q 0.8 w 0.7 w c 0.6
0 (I) LI) Z U)

w
0
U) z

Lii

o 0.2 0. 0. 0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

3.5

0.9

VERTICAL DEFLECTION AT INTERSECTION d!T5

(a) The pressure-deflection curves (NONSAP-I).

a 0.9 w a.a

0.3
0

Ref.(46) ' NONSAP-I -

0.2

02

0.3

0:4

0.?

0:5

o.

FRACTIONAL LIGAMENT THICKNESS

fl

(b) Variation of the limit pressure versus fractional ligament thickness r and comparison with P.L.A. and ref.(t6).
FIG.5.9 PRESSURE VESSEL No.3.

CHAPTER SIX

163

CHAPTER SIX EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION In order to check the theoretical predictions of the plastic limit analysis and the nonlinear finite element program NONSAP and also to determine the failure pressure, experimental work has been conducted in which a spherical pressure vessel with a flush cylindrical nozzle was tested to failure under internal pressure. The vessel had an external part-through circumferential groove which was concentric with the nozzle and located at the junction of nozzle and sphere. The geometry of the specimen and its dimensions are shown in Fig. 6.1. The specimen was manufactured from a solid billet of aluminium alloy, BS1476 HT3OWP, which closely simulates an elastic-p rfe tly plastic material. The material behaviour assumed in the theoretical analysis makes it possible to compare the predictions with experin ntal results. In industrial practice, various defects frequently occur in pressure vessels due to faults in welding. In the present test the groove was made to represent a circumferential crack at the intersection of nozzle and sphere. To simulate an actual defect a sharp crack should be adopted. However, this would not permit the insertion of strain gauges at the base of the crack where strains are expected to be highest. A groove of finite width is required for this purpose. The main object of the test is to investigate the plastic behaviour of the vessel affected by the defect. The response of the specimen was recorded by means of strain gauges and particular interest was concentrated in the vicinity of the groove.

164

6.2 SPECIMEN A test specimen which is shown in Fig. 6.1 was machined out of a solid billet of aluminium alloy. After manufacture, the actual dimensions of the specimen were carefully measured. Some dimensions such as the length and the outside diameter of the cylinder were easily measured using a 6" vernier. The wall thicknesses of the cylinder and sphere were measured by using an ultrasonic digital thickness measurement gauge. Before measuring the specimen, calibration was carried out by using two plates with parallel and smooth surfaces for each plate. The thicknesses of the two plates were measured by using a micrometer. They were 1 .980mm 0.002 and 3.962mm 0.002 respectively. Note that the two plates must be cut from the same material as the specimen used. Otherwise error will occur due to different material properties, such as the density and Young's modulus, which will influence the ultrasonic velocity through the material. To ensure a good contact between the surface of the probe and the surface of the material to be measured, some oil was first put onto the surfaces. Care must be taken when measuring the thickness of curved plate such as the sphere and cylinder walls. The probe can only be put onto the convex side of the plate and the central point of the front surface of the probe i'iust be contact the point to be measured. The true value of wall thickness will be the lowest reading obtained as the angle of the probe is changed. The reading will obviously be higher when measured from the inside surface of the sphere. In order to check the axial synnetry, the points to be measured were selected at two perpendicular meridians in the spnere. Two sets of data were therefore obtained. In each meridian seven points with equal spacing were measured and the thicknesses measured in

165

millimetres are as follows:

Data 1: Data 2:

3.12 3.12

3.11 3.12

3.10 3.10

3.10 3.11

3.12 3.11

3.10 3.10

3.09 3.10

The average value in data set 1 is

= 3.106mm. The absolute

difference between the maximum and the minimum values is

T=3.12mm-

-3.09 mm0.03mm. The uniformity of the sphere wall thickness is assessed

by means of the deviation of all the measured data from their average value, i.e. T/Tv=O.O3mmJ3.1O6mmO.97/o . we similarly obtain 3.109mm, For data set 2, = 0.02mm and thd deviation

of the data is 0.64%. The cylinder wall thicknesses measured in millimetres are:

Data 1: Data 2:

3.55 3.56

3.55 3.55

3.56 3.55

3.56 3.56

As analyzed for the sphere, the deviations of data set 1 and 2 are both 0.28%. The data listed above indicate that the vessel has reasonably uniform wall thicknesses and the axial symmetry is satisfactory for experimental purposes. Due to some geometrical difficulties, the probe of the ultrasonic instrument could not be fitted into the bottom of the groove to measure its thickness. An alternative method was to measure the depth of the groove by using a depth micrometer. However, the depth micrometer could

166

not be fitted into the groove either. This difficulty was overcome by means of a slip gauge of 3" length. The lower surface of the slip gauge was located at the edge of the groove and in the tangential plane to the sphere to ensure the depth was measured in the radial direction. The depth micrometer was then put onto the top surface of the slip gauge and measured as usual. The final reading minus the length of the slip gauge (3") gave the depth of the groove to be 1.90 mm. The ratio of the groove wall thickness to the nominal value of the sphere wall thickness is equal to 0.39. To evaluate the width of the groove, the diameter of the outer edge of the groove was measured using a vernier. The corresponding angle (pwhich is equal to 74.5 degrees is plotted in Fig. 6.1.

6.3 TEST RIG AND INSTRUMENTATION The test rig and equipment associated with the test is depicted in Fig. 6.2. It consists mainly of a flat circular plate, a clamping ring, an Enerpac hand pump, a non-return valve, a Bourdon pressure gauge and a pressure transducer. The flat circular plate was used as a base place which had a diameter of 26" and a thickness equal to 2.5' A recess in the plate. accommodated an '0' ring seal and the flange of the specimen was clamped to the base plate by a ring using 18 equally distributed screws. The diameter of the ring was 18--inch and its thickness was l- inch. The '0' ring seal was therefore clamped between the base plate and the bottom of the specimen to prevent oil leakage during test. An air bleed valve was fixed at the top of the vessel which was sealed by a Dowty washer. The pressurising medium was oil and pressure was applied by a simple Enerpac hand pump via a non-return valve to the specimen.

1 67

Ten strain gauges of EP-08-062AP - 120 type were used for the specimen. The gauge factor at 75F is equal to 2.04 0.5% and the resistance is 120.0 ohms 0.15%. The EP series gauges can be used in the measurement of post yield or plastic strains with strain limits of approximately 20%. Although the strain gauge is self-temperature compensating, this is usually not important because the temperature induced apparent-strain errors are very small compared to the plastic strains measured in the present work. The arrangement of strain gauges is shown in Fig. 6.3. All ten gauges were fixed on the outside surface of the specimen. In order to check for axial symmetry in vessel behaviour and in the event of failure of the gauges during test, two groups of gauges were fixed on two perpendicular meridians. Two pairs of gauges (Gauge No. 1 and 2, 5 and 6) were located at the centre of the groove along meridional and hoop directions respectively for each pair. Similarly, another two pairs of gauges (Gauge No.3 and 4, 7 and 8) were installed at the edge of the groove on the top surface. A pair of gauges (Gauge No.9 and 10) were positioned away from the groove, which might be used to give a rough idea of the development of the plastic zone. The strain gauge readings were recorded by means of a Peekel automatic digital strain gauge system (model PP 581 S) and a 50 channel balancing unit (model PP 2K RB1). Before the test started all of the strain gauges were connected to the balancing unit to form half bridge circuits and the readings were adjusted to zero. During test the output from the strain recording system was obtained by using an Addo-x punch out on eight track paper tape. The results could also be printed on digital recording paper simultaneously.

168

The applied load was measured with a strain gauge t yp e pressure transducer which was connected to the balancing unit to form a full bridge circuit. An ordinary Bourdon tube pressure gauge which was mounted onto the hand pump was also used. The valve of the pressure could be read directly from the dial. Before the test both the pressure transducer and the tube gauge were calibrated by dead weight apparatus. In analyzing the results, the reading from the pressure transducer was used.

6.4 TEST PROCEDURE Before the test, the air bleed valve was removed and oil was pumped into the vessel to the top of the nozzle. It was left for about one hour and air was allowed to escape from inside the vessel. Then the air bleed valve was screwed back and sealed by a Dowty washer. The pressure transducer and all of the strain gauges were connected to the 50 channel balancing unit and adjusted to give approximately zero readings. Usually a small error of 5 microstrain is acceptable. During test, the pressure-meridional strain and pressure-hoop strain curves from the strain gauges located in the groove were continually plotted manually in order to observe the initial yield and post yield behaviour of the vessel. Due to the deep groove those two curves were expected to be the most sensitive to describe the deformation behaviour of the specimen and therefore they might be used to determine the pressure increments and time interval in each load step. First of all the pressure was applied in increments of 0.5 MN/rn2 up to 5 MN/rn2 in the elastic range. At that load level the initial yield was expected to appear and an increment of 0.3 MN/rn 2 was adopted. The first yield actually occurred at a pressure of approximately 7 MN/rn 2 . It should be

- 19

nctecd that beyond the Initial yield point transient creep occurred and t a readings were time dependent to some extent. An Interval of five m utes was left to allow the readings to settle down. As the pressure increased to 9 MN/rn2 the plastic region developed% Due to the transient creep the volume of the vessel increased and hence the pressure tended
to drop. The pressure increment was then reduced to 02 MN/m2

The

strains in the groove were monitored every two minutes to check the creep rate. It was found that after an interval of ten minutes the creep rate was considerably reduced. After the pressure of 12 MN/rn2 an increment of 0.1 MN/rn2 was employed until bursting took place. Readings were- taken over a period of fifteen minutes. In plotting the results, the readings at the end of each load increment were always used.

6.5 MATERIAL PROPERTIES A simple tension stress-strain curve for the material (Aluminium
alloy BS1476 HT 3OWP), obtained by another worker using an

Instron

testing machine, is shown in Fig. 6.4. The experimental stress-strain curve showed that the strain hardening
effect is negligible and therefore it is a good approximation

to the

elastic-perfectly plastic material assumed in the limit analysis. From the stress-strain curve, the yield stress y WaS defined as the 0.2%
proof stress, i.e., cit,, = 264.4 MN/rn2 . Elastic modulus C

which equals

66184 MN/rn2 was obtained from the elastic part of the curve. Finally,

the value of the Poisson's ratio V was taken as the proportion between the lateral and longitudinal strains measured in elastic range.

170

6.6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6.6.1 Pressure-Strain Curves The pressure-strain curves obtained from the ten strain gauges are shown in Fig. 6.5. Except for the curves produced by strain gauges 9 and 10, all other curves are plotted in pairs to check the axial symmetry of the strain distributions. The pressure-meridional and pressure-hoop strain curves obtained from the gauges in the groove are shown in Figs. 6.5(a) and (b) which are quite similar in shape. For each curve there is a portion of a straight line which exhibits the linear elastic response. At a point of departure from linearity, the initial yield takes place. The values of the pressure at which the initial yield begins are 6.82 MN/rn2 from gauge 1 and 7.14 MN/rn 2 from gauge 5. A surprising feature of these curves is that there are sudden changes of direction after certain load levels. For example, the curve obtained from gauge 1 is reversed at a pressure of 9.45 MN/rn2 . For the curve from gauge 2 the pressure is 11 .26 MN/rn 2 . Observing the curves in Figs. 6.5(a) and (b), it can be seen that the strains reduce very rapidly with increase in pressure. The maximum meridional strain in the groove is 0.69% obtained from gauge 1. The maximum hoop strain is 0.72% obtained from gauge 2. Finally, fracture occurred at a strain of 0.31% in the meridional direction and 0.36% in the hoop direction. The reversal of the pressure-strain curves could obviously be attributed to the change in geometry caused by the appearance of a plastic hinge circle concentric with the nozzle in the groove. The hinge circle can be regarded as a deformation mechanism which may be the start of significant plastic flow, and the nozzle is therefore pushed upwards. It should be noted that the nozzle and the sphere are much

171

stiffer than the ligament of the groove due to the great depth of the groove. The deformation

of the nozzle and the sphere away from the of the groove. The

groove is negligible compared with the deformation curvature

of the outside surface of the groovein the meridional

direction will be decreased with the upward 'rigid' body motion of the nozzle and the meridional strain is therefore reduced. Since no strain gauges were fixed to the inside surface of the groove, the existence of such a hingle circle is rather difficult to visualise. The reduction of the hoop strain versus pressure requires careful interpretation. It may be supposed that after a certain load level the outward displacement of part of the groove material gradually decreases, and the hoop strain is therefore reduced. The pressure-strain curves plotted in Fig. 6.5(c) are obtained from gauge 3 and 7 which are fixed at the edge of the groove in the meridional direction (see Fig. 6.3). A significant feature of these two curves is that the strains have negative values which indicate that the curvature of the outside surface of the sphere at the edge of the groove is gradually reduced with the upward motion of the nozzle. It also indicates that yielding has spread beyond the edge of the groove. The two curves are quite consistent, only small differences can be seen even at high levels of strain. The initial yield pressure determined from these curves is about 8.42 MN/rn 2 . The maximum strains at failure are -0.73% from gauge 3 and -0.78% from gauge 7. The pressure-strain curves plotted in Fig. 6.5(d) are very similar to the curves shown in Fig. 6.5(c). These two curves are obtained from gauges 4 and gauge 8 which are installed at the edge of the groove in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 6.3). The two curves coincide very well and the initial yield pressures at the departure from linearity

172

are both about 8.65 MN/rn2 . The maximum strains at failure are 0.94% from gauge 4 and 0.96% from gauge 8. The pressure-strain curve plotted in Fig. 6.5(e) is obtained from gauge 9 which is fixed away from the groove and Th the meridional direction. This curve is predominantly linear. Approaching the failure pressure the slope of the curve is slightly increased. The pressure-strain curve plotted in Fig. 6.5(f) is obtained from gauge 10 which is at the same position as gauge 9 but in the circumferential direction. This curve is almost a straight line which indicates that the deformation there is still in the linear elastic range. From these two curves, it can be roughly concluded that the plastic zone has not developed as far as the points at which strain gauges 9 and 10 are fixed. Axial symmetry is demonstrated satisfactorily by the curves plotted in pairs. Discrepancies can be found from Figs. 6.5(a) and (b) when the pressure has reached a high level. The disagreements may be due to the fact that the thickness of the ligament of the groove is not absolutely uniform and the upward movement of the nozzle is not exactly in the axial direction of the vessel. In plotting the above pressure-strain curves, all of the values are taken when the transient creep has settled down during the test. Observation showed that after yielding occurs the creep became significant and therefore the strains from gauges 1 and 2 were monitored every two or three minutes. The creep was then estimated from the strains and associated time intervals. To demonstrate the phenomenon of creep, two examples at different load levels are presented in Fig. 6.6. The values of creeps calculated from these curves are listed in Table 6.1.

173

As shown in Fig. 6.6(a), the strains increased rapidly when the pressure was just applied to 8.695 MN/rn 2 . Due to creep, the volume of the specimen increased and the pressure decreased to 8.62 MN/rn 2 after 8 minutes as no more oil was pumped into the vessel. The meridional creep rate is 21.7 microstrain per minute at the beginning and finally reduced to 0.75 microstrain per minute. Other creep rates are listed in Table 6.1. In Fig. 6.6(b), variation of the hoop strain versus time is very similar to those curves in Fig. 6.6(a), but the meridional strain decreased as the time increased. A negative value of the creep rate is therefore obtained. In the present test, the final readings were taken only when creep reduced to less than an absolute value of 5 niicrostrairi per minute. Failure occurred at a pressure of 14.2 1N/m2 resulting in a complete separation of the nozzle from sphere. The photographs shown in Fig.6.7 demonstrate the failed specimen.

6.6 .2 coisonwithlialPedicio To compare the experimental pressure-strain curves with the theoretical predictions obtained from the program NONS.AP, the corresponding strains are calculated from the displacement field. The general procedure to calculate the strains from nodal displacements is presented in Appendix 3. The pressure-strain curves together with the experimental results obtained from the strain gauges fixed in the groove are plotted in Figs. 6.8 and 6.9. It can be seen that they coincide quite well until the reversals of the experimental curves occur. The great discrepancy thereafter needs careful investigation. It might be due to the severe distortion of the specimen at the intersection, which is not detected by the program NONSAP. Comparisons of the theoretical pressure-strain curves with the

174

experimental data from other gauges are presented in Fig. 6.10. Reasonably good agreements can be found. It is well-known that the exact value of the experimental limit pressure of a vessel is very diffcu1t to determine. This may be due to the following two reasons. The first reason is that the material can never exhibit an ideal elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour as supposed in the plastic limit analysis. The second reason is that the change of geometry will affect the response of a structure especially when large plastic deformation occurs. For the present problem, the deep groove significantly complicates the behaviour of the pressure vessel. i\s seen in Fig. 6.5 all of the curves have no sudden change of slope which may provide a defini value of pressure at which the vessel undergoes significant plastic flow. Therefore no well defined experimental limit pressure exists. However, to assess the loading capacity of the vessel, some significant values of the pressure such as the initial yield pressure and the failure pressure P f can be determined from the

experimental curves and compared with theoretical predictions. The experimental initial yield pressure P, is defined from the pressure-strain curve at the departure from linearity. The pressure Py is usually taken as the lowest value obtained from any curve. For the present test specimen, the pressure P,, which is equal to 6.82 MN/rn2 is determined from the curve which is obtained by strain gauge 1 and plotted in Fig. 6.5(a). The theoretical pressures P, indicated by the output of the yield values of the stresses from either NONSAP-I or NONSAP-Il, which coincide with the values determined from the pressuremeridional strain curves at the departure from linearity (see Fig. 6.8). The values of P, which are equal to 6.41 MN/rn2 from NONSAP-I and 6.65 MN/rn2

'S

from I1tQSP-II, are very close to the eper ental result The experienta1 faflure ess'uare which equals 14.2 tIN/rn2 , Is

the val 'ii at which rtpture occurs The theoretical failure pressure can not be predicted from the prigrai NSAP due to no fracture cr1 ten a being taken into account. bever, it is possible to compare the

experimental result with the theoretical

values estimated from the

pressure-strain curves plotted in Fig. 688 and Fig.. 6.9. The analysis

obtained from t10NSAP-I assumes that

the material is perfectly plastic and of the vessel is there

the deformation is infinitesimal so that the response

not affected by the change of geometry. Under such assumptions,

exists a load at which the deformation bound. As shown in

of the vessel

increases without

Fig. 6.8 and Fig. 689, after

a certain pressure the The maximum

strains increase

rapidly with a little

increase of pressure8

pressure is equal to 13.10 failure pressure of

tIN/rn2

which is just below the experimental

14.2 PIN/rn2.

The pressure which may cause a steady plastic flow can also be estimated from the developed yield contours plotted in Figs. 6.11 and

6.12.

It can be seen that at the pressure of 715

MN/rn2 yielding just

occurs in the bottom of the groove, which is enveloped by the curve '1 '.. At the pressure of 11.01 curves indicated by
151

MN/rn2

the plastic zone is enveloped by the

and a full plastic hinge is formed at the

intersection of the vessel. As the pressure increases further, e.g. 13.03

MN1'm2 ,

yielding develops into both the sphere and cylinder and a

large plastic zone indicated by '8' is formed. For geometrically nonlinear analysis in the program tIAP-1t, the pressure-strain curves are similar

in shape to thrse obtained friom

NONSAP-I. As shown in Fig. 6.8 and Fig. 6.9, the pressure calculated y

176

NONSAP-Il corresponding to a certain level of strain is slightly higher

than that obtained by NONSAP-I. This implies strengthening due to change of geometry. The limit pressure calculated from the plastic limit analysis (see Chapter four) is 10.51 MN/rn2 . However, a sharp crack was assumed in the analysis rather than a crack-like groove. The limit pressure obtained is therefore not very suitable to compare with the experimental results. The error produced by the different geometry of the defect can be estimated by the results obtained from NONSAP-I. As shown in Fig. 6.13, the limit pressure for the vessel with a U-notch of radius to sphere thickness ratio equal to 0.5 is 18.04 MN/rn2 . However, the limit pressure for the vessel with a groove is 13.10 MN/rn2 which is 27.4% lower compared with the U-notched vessel. The limit pressure obtained by Lim (private communication) using thin shell formulation is 16.41 MN/rn2 for the vessel with a sharp crack and 10.54 MN/rn2 for the vessel with a groove. The error estimated is about 35.8 per cent. Hence the limit pressure (i.e. 10.51 MN/rn2 ) obtained from the plastic limit analysis (Chapter four) would be lowered making agreement worse. The displacement field of the.vessel in the vicinity of the groove is presented in Fig. 6.14 which is obtained by NONSAP-Il at a pressure of 14.02 MN/rn2 . It can be seen that the maximum shear strain occurs at the intersection. Obviously this phenomenon is produced by the upward motion of the nozzle especially when sufficient material at the groove has been yielded. It is well-known that for most ductile metals, fracture is often induced by the maximum shear strain. Observation of the failed specimen shows that the fracture surface is located close to the intersection of the nozzle and groove. Therefore it can be concluded that failure of the vessel is predominantly attributed to the

177

maximum shear strain. Plastic limit analysis ignores the strain hardening of the material, and so the value of yield stress to be used in the solution has to be decided upon. For the sake of safety, we usually use 0.2% proof stress which is defined from the simple tension stress-strain curve. This yield stress gives a lower bound to the limit load. However, Dowling and Townley (39) indicated that vessel failure is predicted more accurately by basing a limit analysis on the material's ultimate stress rather than on its yield stress. For aluminium alloy used in the test specimen, The ultimate stress cTequals to 287.6 MN/rn 2 . Hence, using the value of C'the limit pressure obtained by. P.L.A. will be 11.45 MN/rn2 which is 8.94% higher than the pressure of 10.51 MN/rn2 using the yield stress cry. For NONSAP-I, the limit pressure will be 14.27 MN/rn2 which is also increased by 8.94%. In comparison with the experimental failure pressure of 14.2 MN/rn2 , NONSAP-I gives a very good agreement. However, the pressure predicted by P.L.A. is still lower than experiment. The discussion in this section is limited to a qualitative description of the features which are observed in the test and computations. Since the processes of ductile fracture are extremely complex, it is impossible to predict the exact value of the failure pressure. For further studies a so-called limit analysis - fracture mechanics two-criteria approach suggested by Dowling and Townley (39) could be used n the assessment of defects in real structures. The two-criteria approach to the study of defects states that structural failure occurs when the loading system reaches the lower of either a magnitude calculated to cause fracture by linear elastic fracture mechanics theory or a magnitude sufficient to cause ultimate collapse of the structure. Dowlirig and Townley derived an expression

178

to describe the two-criteria approach.

Lf _2

cos { exp -

ic2L2k)J

8L

where L f is a failure parameter (stress, pressure, load, etc), L is a collapse 1 L' based on ultimate stress and Lk is a failure 'L' based on linear elastic fracture mechanics. This provides an empirical failure criterion to describe the behaviour of cracked structures. In practice, the failure loads according to each criterion would be calculated se p arately, and then the assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects is carried out by interpolating the results between plastic analysis and fracture mechanics. Sometimes, the linear elastic fracture mechanics may considerably underestimate the actual failure load of a structure especially for ductile materials. Recently, various forms of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics have been used to give better approximations of failure conditions. One of those is the COD (the crack opening displ.acement) approach proposed by Wells (96). In this approach, the relative displacement of the crack sides at the crack tip is taken as a measure of the critical value of the defect. Another approach known as the J-integral method (a path independent integral for nonlinear elastic materials),was proposed by Rice (97). The J-integral may be considered as a measure of the difference in potential energy between two identically loaded bodies having cracks of slightly different lengths. It is believed that the fracture criteria based on the theory of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics will be a good approach to predict the failure of structures with defects.

179

initial data P Co P

final data C0 time interval

MN/rn 2 xlO 3 minT1 xlO 3 min: 1 MN/rn 2 x1O 3 mn xlO 3 rnirr 1 (mm) 8.695 21.7 8.38 8.626 0.75 0.63 8

10.398

-14.17

32.22

10.350

-4.83

2.16

12

Tab'e 6.1

Experimental data of creep.

180

Alt dimensions in mm

Fig.

6.1

Test specimen

181

E
c

-u
C ci

E J
-4--

a) > ci >
C Ia) C 0 z

(I, C

C 0

-4-

U,
-a-.40
1) U

in

L. cn

0 a

(0
C

0
C-)

C 3 C

-o ci
I, C

ci u)

182

A =76.20 B72.9 0=50.60

10

Fig. 6.3 Strain gauge Locations.


183

300

250
NJ

E 200
If) if)

w : 150 Iif)

100

50

0 0 2 4 6 8 STRAN

10 x103

12

14

Fig. 6.4 The stress-strain curve in simple tension test.

184
p p I I I I

'4

14

12
a E
z

I
-

12 10
2:
0t

.
. .

' : .
0,8t '

. -

10
B
as

a
.aA

U.J U) - a

U)
Lu

(f) U)

6
4 2
S

a a gauge 3 4 gauge

u_i

4 2
a
.

gauge a
a a

I 5
7

- -

2 6
7

gauge

.
S

MERIDIONAL STRAIN xt0 (a)

HOOP STRAIN xl0 (b)

14 12 10 / 2:8

14 12

i /
:

..
'E

10 8
'7
V

.9

- 2:
-
U)
c_c)

:J6
(1)

6
. gauge 1+

(I)

o 4

caucie 3 gauge

o-

2

0 2

-
10

2
TV

gauge

6
x10

MERIDIONAL STRAIN (c)

HOOP STRAIN x10 (dl

14 12 E 10
2: 2:

14 12 10
2:8

u_i U) U) uJ

u_i c_fl U) u_i Q- 4

2

2 0 0.0 0.5 1.0

(1)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1.5

MERIDIONAL STRAIN (0)

HOOP STRAIN x1O

Fig.6.5 Variation of strains with pressure.

185

5.12 P

3.62 o E

8.72

x 9.
Z 4

5.10

3.60

8.70

5.08

3.58
z:

8.68
Lii 4

5.06

3.56

LI) W

8.66

c
cl_

Q_ 8.64

5.04

5.02

3.52

8.62

5.00 0 2 4 TIME 6 miri. 8

3.50

8.60 0

4 TIME

6 mir.

(a) The initial pressure Pz8.695 MN/rn2

T 0

4.20

9-4.15 c) 4.10

4.05
4

0
4.00 ci
Lii

I
0
I

iC

3.95

6 TIME

12

6 TIME

12

mm.

mm.

(b) The initial pressure P=1O.398 MN/rn2 Fig. 6.6 Variation of strains and pressure versus time due to the effect of creep.

186

Fig.6.7 Failed specimen

187

-4--

0 C

ci)

E
L.
a)
x ci) -c

n () U) G) >

L.
C-) -C zLf)

H-

(-n a) -J 0_ zD C-)

:3-0 U) 0)0 0

a
:

1) 0) 0 o a) 0)
L. :3

ci)

-4

L. 4-

4--a
o a o
0)
CD

c3 0 C_)

0
Lfl

00 O1J
co

(C
'0
(N

C) '0 (N
CD

c Li

W /NN

iflSSdd

188

C G)

E
(N a) 0) CD 0) a) 0) CD 0)

0) 0 ci) -c
C)

a) >

(I)

C
03 -

0 0)O

z L.

'

ci 0
C) -

z
ci) J 0

ci

o
ci) -c
L.

-E
0) c 0 0 -o ci)

(N

o
L

ci 10 00 O1J
C)

'0

-4-

(N

C)
03 '0 -4- (N

C)

CD

LL W/NN dfl5dd

1 89 16 NONSAP-Il 14 12
"I

NONLP_1

E z

10 8
U V U I

F
V U

Lii

a:

(n Ui a: 0

6 4
V

9U9e3 93U9e7 -

2 0

-2

-4 -6 a MERIDIONAL STRAIN xiO-3 (a)

-e

-10

16 14 12
E

(N

10
LU a: ci-)

8 6 4 2 0

U)
LU a:

a.

10

12

HOOP STRAIN xiO (b)

Fig. 6.10 Comparison of- the experimentaL pressure-strain curves with theoreticaL predictions.

190

16

14 ('.1 12 z 10 ci;
1

U) U)

a4 2

0 0.0 0.2 Oi. 0.6 0.5 1,0 1.2

VerticQi deflection

mm

Fig. 6.11 The loaddeflection curves of the test specimen.

8 7 6 5 4 3

Fig. 6.12 The development of plastic enclaves (the corresponding pressures are indicated in Fig. 6.11)

191

20 18 16 E - 14

12 w J 3
U) U) LU 0

c8 6 4 2 0

cLO

0.2

Oi+

0.6

0.3 mm

VERTICAL DEFLECTION AT INTERSECTION

Fig.6.13 The pressure-deflection curves affected by different defects:(a) U-notched defect and (b) groove. (NONSAP-I)

192

('4

E z
('4

P 3-4--

0
>

-4--

0 a

a
C))
L.

a) -c
-4--

U) C C 0 C
>'

CD

C U) C (I)
-4-

0)

E
U) 0 C 0 LI)

C () -4-.
a) E a) 0

( LL NJ-

CHAPTER SEVEN

193 CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK

7.1 CONCLUSIONS (a) Cylinder-cylinder intersections Lower bounds to the limit pressure have been evaluated for a range of geometric parameters, by the use of thin shell formulation and a nonlinear optimization procedure. For the vessels without defects, the results are presented for three geometric parameter ratios, such as a/R, t/T and R/T, and are in agreement with values already obtained by Robinson (32). Lower bound solutions are also calculated for the vessels with defects of varying depth. Results are presented for several geometries and it is found that the limit pressure decreases as the depth of the defect increases. However, the effect of the defect (0.2 ^ m 1 .0) on the limit pressure of the vessel is not very

significant. In addition the limit pressure caused by the internal crack is slightly higher than the external crack with the same value of m.

(b) Cylinder-sphere intersections 1. Using a three-dimensional stress formulation and von Mises material yield criterion, rather than the stress resultants and derived interaction yield conditions, the lower bound limit pressure has been calculated for either a thin or thick spherical vessel with a flush/protruding nozzle. The effect of a circumferential crack, located at the junction of the nozzle and sphere, on the limit pressure of the vessel was investigated and presented for a limited range of geometric parameters. It is found that the limit pressures obtained are considerably lower than the results from NONSAP, Goodall and Miller (46) and experimental data. Therefore the results predicted by this method may not be acceptable.

194

2. A nonlinear finite element progran NONSAP was used to investigate the elastic-plastic behaviour of the vessel with a defect. The defect is modelled by a U-shaped notch fully around the intersection of the nozzle and sphere. The investigation of the variation of T , ranging from 0.1/0.2 to 1 .0, indicates that the defect does not appear to affect the limit pressure significantly. Observation of the results also shows that yielding originates at the intersection and gradually develops into both the cylinder and sphere, and hence large displacements and large strains are located in an area close to the junction. In addition, the effects of change of geometry and strain hardening of the material imply a strengthening of the vessel as would be expected. 3. An experiment has been carried out to investigate the failure under internal pressure of a spherical vessel with a flush nozzle and an external circumferential groove around the intersection. The behaviour of the vessel is characterized by the pressure-strain curves recorded in the groove and at other positions of the specimen. It is e1ieved tt plastic deformation is confined to the vicinity of the groove and a shear fracture mode at the intersection occurs. Due to the effects of change of geometry and strain hardening of the material a well defined experimental limit pressure does not exist. To justify the theoretical predictions, the experimental data are compared with the following three theoretical results: (1) P.L.A. (plastic limit analysis using stress formulation). (2) Results by C.S. Lim (plastic limit analysis using thin shell formulation). (3) Nonlinear finite element program NONSAP. From the experimental evidence it is found that failure is predicted quite accurately by NONSAP and Lim's analysis, and the value predicted by P.L.A. is considerably lower. In general, the plastic limit analysis by the use of thin shell

195

formulation and a nonlinear finite element method give nearly the same limit pressure which is close to the failure pressure of the test specimen. For the method of plastic limit analysis using the stress formulation, however, the results obtained are very low and further modifications are required.

7.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK The recommendations for further work are as follows:(1) In order to facilitate the analysis, the defect considered here is idealized to be a fully circumferential crack, concentric with the nozzle and located at the intersection. In practice the defects are more likely part-circumferential, either internal or external surface cracks, and even buried flaws, which may be located anywhere and in any directions. In this case, the problem becomes nonsymmetric and the solution is very complicated. Although the methods of analysis presented
here may provide a conservative estimate

of failure of the vessel with

the idealized defect, it is still desirable to predict failure of a vessel with any arbitrary shape of defect. Attempts to solve such problems have been made by many researchers. Miller (99) carried out experiments to investigate the failure under internal pressure of spheres containing external surface defects, round part of a circle of latitude. The results were analysed by taking the crack opening displacement (COD) as a failure criterion. The COD-pressure curves indicated that quite extensive plastic deformation occurred with a considerable increase in pressure. For axisymmetric defects, a linear relationship between the value of COD at failure and the crack ligament thickness is well described by Goodall and Griffiths (100) and Miller (101).

196

For part-circumferential defects, finite element methods might be considered as a means of calculating the COD. However the problem would become a three-dimensional elastic-plastic analysis and a large number of elements around the defect must be employed. (2) It is well-known that an accurate assessment of plastic collapse would take into account material strain hardening, finite strain and finite deformation effects. However, the limit analysis ignores these effects and only provides a lower bound to the limit pressure. In some cases considerable error will be produced by using this method. It has been proved that the nonlinear finite element method is a good approach and the effects of strain hardening and change of geometry can be fairly easily taken into account. In the present work only the axisymmetric cylinder-sphere pressure vessel is calculated using the finite element approach. It should be extended to the computation of non-axisymmetric vessels, such as cylinder-cylinder intersections. (3) In the present work only the lower bound theorem has been used to calculate the limit loads of vessels. It is well-known that a reliable prediction of the limit load of a vessel can be given provided that good lower and upper bound solutions are obtained. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis states that, assuming a velocity field within the structure, and equating the rate of work done by the external load on the structure to the rate of internal work in the structure using the normality rule,gives an upper bound to the limit load. By applying the upper bound theorem, Miller (48) calculated an upper bound to the limit pressure of a sphere with a protruding nozzle, and a partial penetration circumferential defect. Four possible kinematic failure mechanisms were assumed and the internal and external rates of work were equated to derive the limit pressure.

197

In order to determine the limit loads of vessels more accurately, it will be worthwhile to conduct an upper bound analysis for the same geometries considered in the present work. (4) The experimental results presented here are based only upon one test, there exists some uncertainty and ambiguity in interpreting the experimental data. Hence there is still a need for further work to be done on the experimental investigation. Firstly, a series of specimens with different depth of defect are required to be tested in order to establish a complete understanding of the influence of the varying depth of the defect on the failure pressure. Secondly, in order to directly compare the pressure-deflection curves predicted by NONSAP, the displacements at the intersection and/or at the centre of the top end of the nozzle should be measured using displacement transducers. Thirdly, to simulate the real situation, further experiments should be done with vessels with a sharp crack, internal crack and a crack located at other positions. Finally, the plastic limit analysis of cylinder-cylinder intersections with a defect should be extended to an experimental evaluation to verify the theoretical predictions. (5) The method of plastic limit analysis presented in Chapter four was expected to be a good approach since the formulation is in terms of stresses and the material yield.criterion rather than the stress resultants and derived interaction yield criteria. However, the results obtained are very low compared with the experimental data and the finite element program NONSAP. The error may possibly be due to the insufficient

198

number of variables as limited by the computer storage. In addition, it appears necessary to derive alternative stress formulations to describe the stress distributions more efficiently.

1 99 REFERENCES

1. Drucker, D.C., Prager, W. and Greenberg, H.J., "Extended limit design theorems for continuous media", Quart. J. App. Math., Vol. 9, No.4, pp. 385-389, 1952. 2. Hopkins, H.G. and Prager, W., "The Load carrying capacities of circular plates", J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 2, pp. 1-13, 1953. 3. Drucker, D.C., uLimit analysis of cylindrical shells under axially symmetric loading", Proc. 1st Midw. Conf. Solid Mech., Urbana, P p. 158-163, 1953. 4. Paul, B., "Collapse loads of rings and flanges under uniform twisting moment and radial force", J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 26, pp. 265-270, 1959. 5. Hodge, P.G. Jr., "Limit analysis of rotationally symmetric plates and shells", Prentice Hall, New York, 1963. 6. Drucker, D.C. and Shield, R.T., "Limit analysis of symmetrically loaded thin shells of revolution", Journal of Applied Mechanics,

pp. 61-68, 1959.

7. Gill, S.S., "The Limit pressure for a flush cylindrical nozzle in a spherical pressure vessel", mt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 6,

pp. 105-115, 1964.

8. Dinno, K.S. and Gill, S.S., "The effect of the circumferential bending moment and change of circumferential curvature on the calculation of the limit pressure of symmetrically loaded shells of revolution", mt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 7, pp.15-19, 1965. 9. Ellyin, F., "The effect of yield surfaces on the limit pressure of intersecting shells", mt. J. Solids Structures, Vol. 5,

pp. 713-725, 1969.

200

10. Dinno, K.S. and Gill, S.S., "Limit pressure for a protruding cylindrical nbzzle in a spherical pressure vessel", J. Mech. Eng. Sd., Vol. 7, No.3, pp. 259-270, 1965. 11. Dinno, K.S. and Gill, S.S., "An experimental investigation into the plastic behaviour of flush nozzles in spherical pressure vessels", mt. J. Mech. Sd., Vol. 7, pp. 817-839, 1965. 12. Ellyin, F., "Elastic-plastic behaviour of intersecting shells", J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 95, pp. 69-94, 1969. 13. Dinno, K.S. and Gill, S.S., "The Limit analysis of a pressure vessel consisting of the junction of a cylindrical and spherical shell", mt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol.7, pp.21-42, 1965. 14. Dinno, K.S., "A lower bound analysis for the calculation of limit pressure for a thick spherical vessel with a radial cylindrical nozzle", mt. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, Vol. 2, No.2, pp.75-94, 1974. 15. Carroll, C.W., "The Created Response Surface Technique for Optimizing Non-linear Restrained Systems", Operations Research, Vol. 9, pp. 169-184, 1961. 16. Calladine, C.R., "On the design of reinforcement for openings and nozzles in thin spherical pressure vessels", J. Mech. Eng. Sci., Vol. 8, No., pp.1-14, 196g. 17. Hodge, P.G. Jr., "Full strength reinforcement of a cut-out in a cylindrical shell", 3. Appi. Mech. Vol. 31, pp.667-675, 1964. 18. Ruiz, C. and Chukwujekwu, S.E., "Limit analysis design of ring reinforced radial branches in cylindrical and spherical vessels", mt. 3. Mech. Sci. Vol. 9, pp. 11-25, 1967. 19. McIntyre, H., Ashton, J.N. and Gill, S.S., "Limit analysis of a pad reinforced flush nozzle in a spherical pressure vessel", mt. 3. Mech. Sci., Vol. 19, pp. 399-412, 1977.

201

20. Ashton, J.N., McIntyre, H. and Gill, S.S., "A desicn procedure based on limit analysis for a pad reinforced nozzle in a spherical pressure vessel". mt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 20, pp. 747-757, 1978. 21. Mathieson, J., "Theoretical and experimental limit analysis of a pad reinforced flush nozzle in a spherical pressure vessel", M.Sc Dissertation, UMIST, 1978. 22. Yeo, K.T. and Robinson, M., "Minimum weight designs for reinforcement of spherical pressure vessels with flush radial nozzles", mt. J. Pres. Vessels and Piping, Vol. 6, pp. 53-83; 1978. 23. Save, M.A. and Massonnet, C.E., "Plastic Analysis and Design of Plates Shells and Disks", North Holland, 1972. /24. Robinson, M. and Gill, S.S., "A lower bound to the limit pressure of a flush oblique cylindrical branch in a spherical pressure vessel", mt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 14, pp. 579-601, 1972. 25. Robinson, M. and Gill, S.S., "Limit analysis of flush oblique cylindrical nozzles in spherical pressure vessels, Part 1: A parametric survey of results", Tnt. J. Pressure Vessel & Piping, Vol. 1, No.3, pp. 199-231, 1973. 26. Robinson, M. and Gill, S.S., "Limit analysis of flush radial and oblique cylindrical nozzles in spherical pressure vessels, Part 2: Applications of results in a design procedure", Tnt. J. Pressure Vessel and Piping, Vol. 1, No.3, pp.233-244, 1973. /27. Robinson, M., Kirk, A. and Gill, S.S., "An experimental investigation into the plastic behaviour of oblique flush nozzles in spherical pressure vessel", Tnt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 13, pp. 41-61, 1971. 28. Ellyin, F. and Turkkan, N., "Lower bound to limit pressure of nozzle-

202

to-cylindrical shell attachment", ASME paper, 71-pvp-38, 1971 29. Erbatur, F., "Limit analysis of cylinder-cylinder intersections", Ph.D thesis, University of Manchester, 1972. 30. Biron, A., and Coarchesne, A;, "On limit analysis of cylindercylinder intersections subject to internal pressure", Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 36, pp.68-80, 1976. 31. Robinson, M., "A lower bound to the limit pressure of a flush radial cylindrical branch in a cylindrical pressure vessel", Proc. 3rd mt. SMiRT Conf., London, 1-5 Spt. 1975. 32. Robinson, NI., "Lower Bound Limit Pressures for the Cylinder-cylinder Intersection: A Parametric Survey", paper presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, December, 1976. 33. Robinson, NI., "Some Further Comments on Limit Pressures for the Cylinder-cylinder intersection", Technical briefs, J. Pressure Vessel Technology, ASME, Vol . 102, pp.119-120, 1980. 34. Srinivasaiah, K.R. and Schroeder, J., "Lower bounds to limit pressures of a tee-intersection of cylindrical shells based on a three-dimensional stress field", Nuclear Engineering and Design Vol.. 41, No.2, pp. 265-280, 1977. 35. Cloud, R.L. and Rodabaugh, E.C., "Approximate analysis of the plastic limit pressure of nozzles in cylindrical shells", J. Engineering for Power, Trans, ASME, Ser. A(2), pp 171-176, 1968. 36. Cottam, W.J. and Gill, S.S., "Experimental investigations of the behaviour beyond the elastic limit of flush nozzles in cylindrical pressure vessels, J. Mech. Eng. Sci., Vol. 8,

203

No.3, PP. 330-350, 1966. 37. Calladine, C.R. and Goodall, I.W., "Plastic behaviour of thin cylindrical pressure vessels with circular cut outs and radial branches", J. Mech. Eng. Sci., Vol. 11, pp.351-363, 1969. 38. Biron, A., "Review of lower-bound limit analysis for pressure vessel intersections", J. Pressure Vessel Technology, ASME, Ser. J. Vol. 99, pp. 413-418, 1977.; 39. Dowling, A.R. and Townley, C.H.A., "The effect of defects on structural failure: a two-criteria approach", mt. J. Pres. Ves. and Piping, Vol. 3, No.2, 1975. 40. Coon, M.D., Gill, S.S. and Kitching, R., "A lower bound to the limit pressure of a cylindrical pressure vessel with an unreinforced hole", Tnt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 9, pp. 69-75, 1967. 41. Kitching, R., Davies, J.K. and Gill, S.S., "Limit pressures for cylindrical shells with unreinforced openings of various shapes", J. Mech. Engng. Sci., Vol. 12, pp.313-330, 1970. 42. Ruiz, C., "Ductile growth of a longitudinal flaw in a cylindrical shell under internal pressure", Tnt. J. Mech. Sd., Vol. 20, pp. 277-281, 1978. 43. Kitching, R. and Zarrabi, K., "Lower bound to limit pressure for cylindrical shell with part-through slot", Tnt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 23, pp. 31-48, 1981. 44. Zarrabi, K., "Limit pressure for cylindrical shell with part-through rectangular slot", Ph.D Thesis, University of Manchester, 1979. 45. Goodall, T.W. and Griffiths, J.E., "On the limit analysis of a spherical pressure vessel with fully circumferential defects", RD/B/5044N81, CEGB report, March 1981. 46. Goodall, I.W. and Miller, A.G., "Limit analysis of spherical pressure

204

vessels with protruding nozzles and associated defects", RD/B/5038/N81, CEGB report, April, 1981. 47. Miller, A.G., "Limit analysis of spherical pressure vessels with protruding nozzles and defect not at the nozzle", RD/B/5l22/N81, CEGB report, August 1981. 48. Miller, A.G., "Upper bound limit analysis of spherical pressure vessels with protruding nozzles and associated defects at the intersection", RD/B/51l7/N81, CEGB report, August 1981. 49. Zienkiewicz, 0.C., "The finite element method", McGraw-Hill, 1977. 50. Gallagher, R.H., "Finite element analysis - fundamentals", Prentice Hall, 1975. 5]. Owen, D.R.J. and Hinton, E., "Finite elements in plasticity: Theory and practice", Univ. College of Swansea, Pineridge Press Ltd.,,v" U.K. 1980. 52. Yamada, Y., Yoshimura, N. and Sakurai, T., "Plastic stress-strain matrix and its application for the solution of elastic-plastic problems by finite element method", mt. U. Mech. Sd., Vol. 70, pp. 343-354, 1968. 53. Zudans, Z., "Finite element incremental elastic-plastic analysis of pressure vessels" d. Engineering for Industry, Trans. ASME, Vol. 92, Ser. B., pp. 293-302, 97O. 54. Nayak, G.C. and Zienkiewicz, 0.C. "Elasto-plastic stress analysis. A generalisation for various constitutive relations including strain softening", Tnt. J. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol. 5, pp. 113-135, 1972. 55. Bcklund, 3. and Wennerstrm, H., "Finite element analysis of elasto-plastic shells", mt. 3. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol. 8, pp. 415-424, 1974. 56. Turner, N.J., Drill, E.H., Martin, H.C. and Melosh, R.J., "Large

205

deflections of structures subjected to heating and external loads", Journal of Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 27, 1960. 57. Gallagher, R.J. and Padlog, J., "Discrete element approach to structural stability analysis", AIM Journal, Vol. 1, No.6 pp. 1437-1439, 1963. 58. Gallagher, R.J., Gellatly, R.A., Padlog, J. and Mallet, R.H., "A discrete element procedure for thin shell instability analysis", AIAA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 138-145, 1967. 59. Schmit, L.A. Jr., Bogner, F.K. and Fox, R.L., "Finite deflection structural analysis using plate and cylindrical shell discrete elements", Proceedings, AIAA/ASME 8th structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Palm Springs, California, pp. 197-211, 1967. 60. Brebbia, C., and Connor, J., "Geometrically nonlinear finite element analysis", J. Engng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 95, pp. 463-483, 1969. 61. Hibbitt, H.D., Marcal, P.V. and Rice, J.R., "A finite element formulation for problems of large strain and large displacement", mt. J. Solids Structures, Vol. 6, pp. 1069-1086,1970. 62. Hartzman, M., "Finite element static analysis of axisymmetric solids with material and geometric nonlinearities", J. Press. Vessel Tech., Trans. ASME. Ser. J. pp. 386-392, 1977. 63. Totteriham, H. and Barony, S.Y., "Mixed finite element formulation for geometrically non-linear analysis of shells of revolution", mt. J. Num. Meth. Engng., Vol. 12, pp.195-201, 1978. 64. Cook, W.A., "A finite element model for nonlinear shells of revolution", Irit. J. Num. Meth. Engng., Vol. 18, pp. 135-149, 1982. 65. Knott, J.F., "Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics", Butterworths, London, 1973.

206

65. Rice, J.R., "A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks", J. Appl. Mech., pp. 379-386, 1968. 67. Chan, S.K., Tuba, I.S. and Wilson, W.K., "On finite element method in linear fracture mechanics", Engng Fract. Mech., Vol. 2, pp. 1-17, 1970-71. 68. Tracey, D.M., "Finite elements for determination of crack tip elastic stress intensity factors", Engng Fract. Mech. Vol. 3, pp. 255-266, 1971. 69. Henshell, RJD. and Shaw, K.G., "Crack tip finite elements are unnecessary", Tnt. J. Num. Meth. Engng, Vol. 9, pp. 495-507, 1975. 70. Fawkes, A.J., Owen, D.R.J. and Luxmoore, A.R., "An assessment of crack ti p singularity models for use with isoparametric elements", Engng Fract. Mech., Vol. 11, pp.143-159, 1979. 71. Rooke, D.P. and Cartwright, D.J., "Compendiumf stress intensity factors", H.M.S.0., 1977. 72. Onat, E.T., and Prager, W.,, "Limit analysis of shells of revolution", Proc. Roy. Netherlands Acda. Sci., B57, pp. 534-548, 1954. 73. Gill, S.S., "The stress analysis of pressure vessel and pressure vessel components", Pergamon Press, 1970. 74. Hodge, P.G. Jr., "The Mises yield condition for rotationally symmetric shells", Quart. Applied Mathematics, Vol. XVIII, No.4, 1961. 75. Hodge, P.G. Jr., "Yield conditions for rotationally symmetric shells under axisymmetric loading", J. Appi. Mech., Vol. 27, pp.323-331, 1960. 76. Ilyushin, A.A., "Plasticity (in Russian) Goskekhizdat, Moscow, 1948, Plasticit (in France) Eyrolles, Paris, 1956.

207

77. Robinson, M., "A comparison of yield surfaces for thin shells", mt. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 13, pp . 345-354,1971. 78. Shapiro, G.S., "On yield surfaces for ideally plastic shells", In "Problems of Continuum Mechanics", S.I.A.M., Philadelphia, pp. 414-418, 1961. 79. Robinson, M., "The effect of transverse shear stresses on the yield surface for thin shells", mt. J. Solids Structures, Vol. 9, pp. 819-828, 1973. 80. Hill, R., "Mathematical Theory of Plasticity", Oxford, 1950. 81. Prager, W., "The Theory of Plasticity - A survey of recent achievements", Proceedings, Institution of Mechanica) EDgineers. London, No. 169, 1955. 82. Ziegler, H., "A Modification of Prager's hardening rule", Quarterly of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 17, 1959-60,. 83. Bathe, K.J., Ozdemir, H., and 'ilson, E.L., "Static and Dynamic Geometric and Material Nonlinear Analysis", SESM Report No. 74-4, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Feb. 1974. 84. Goodall, I.W., "On the design of intersections in pressure vessels", Ph.D thesis, Cambridge University, 1967. 85. Schroeder, J.,, and Roy, B.K., "Upper bounds to limit pressures of branch-pipe lateral connections. Part I: Bounds for branch/pipe diameter ratios smaller than 0.7", ASME paper No. 71-pvp-43, 1971 86. Schroeder, J., "Upper bounds to limit pressures of branch-pipe lateral connections, Part II: Bounds and reliability for branch/pipe diameter ratios larger than 0.7", ASME paper No. 71-pvp--44, 1971.

. 208

87. Khan, A.S., Chen, J., and Hsiao, C., "A comparative study of the stress field around a reinforced and an unreinforced normal intersection of two cylindrical shells", mt. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, Vol. 15, pp. 79-92, 1984. 88. Green, A.E., and Zerna, W., "Theoretical Elasticity", 1st ed., Oxford University Press, 1954. 89. Box,M.J., Davies, D., and Swann, W.H., "Nonlinear Optimization Techniques", I.C.I. Monogragh No.5, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1969. 90. Ewing, D.J.F., "Plastic yielding under combined tensile/shear loading", TPRD/L/2360/N82, CEGB, December, 1982. 91. Davidon, W.C., "Variable metric method for minimization", AEC Research and Development Report, ANL-599O, 1959. 92. Bathe, K.J., and Wilson, E.L., "Stability artd accuracy analysis of direct integration methods', 1nternationa 3ourna' o1 Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 1, pp. 283-291, 1973. 93. Nickell, R.E., "Direct integration methods in structural dynamics", ASCE, J. Engg. Mech. Div.Vol. 99, pp. 303-317, 1973. 94. Rajkotia, D.P., and Schnobrich, W.C.," A stress analysis of circular cylindrical shell intersections,

including the

influences of reinforcement, cyclic plasticity and fatigue", S.R.S. No.483, University of Illinois, December 1980. 95. Bakhrebah, S.A., and Schnobrich, W.C., "Finite element analysis of intersecting cylinders", S.R.S. No.400, University of Illinois, 1973. 96. Wells, A.A., "Unstable crack propagation in metals: Cleavage and fast fracture", Proc. of the Crack Propagation Symposium, Cranfield, England, 1961.

209

97. Rice, J.R., "A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks", J. of Appl. Mech. Vol. 35, pp. 379-386, 1968. 98. Fiacco, A.V. and McCormick, G.P., "Non-linear Programming: Sequential unconstrainted minimization techniques", Wiley, New York, 1968. 99. Miller, A.G., "Ductile failure pressure of spheres with partcircumferential part-thickness cracks", TPRD/B/0278/N83, June 1983. 100. Goodall, I.W., and Griffiths, J.E., "The failure of ductile plates containing thin ligaments", SMiRTS, Berlin paper F5/5, 1979.
101. Miller, JLG., "The faflure of single edge ,otched ductile plates

in tension", RD/B/t'1 4922, 1980.

210 APPENDIX

Carroll 's ODtimization Procedure

The standard non-linear programming problem is: Minimize a function f(x) subject to a set of constraints R 1 (x)>0, i
=

1,2,...,M.

In the problem of cylinder-cylinder intersection with a crack (Chapter Three), the R are the yield constraints applied at a finite number of points of nozzle, crack and vessel, plus the inequality (3.76) on the boundary equilibrium error.

f()=-p =-x1

where p is the dimensionless internal pressure denoted by X 1 p which is the IPth element of the x vector. For the problem of cylinder-sphere with a crack (Chapter Four), the R are essentially the same as above except that the constraint points are positioned in the six regions shown in Fig. 4.2 and the inequality is the equation (4.43) There are several methods of solving this problem. Here we used the Carroll method (see ref. (15)) which defines a Y function:

Y(x,k)=f(x)^k1/R1(x)

In which, K is a positive constant and x is in the feasible domain, i.e. those x which satisfy the inequalities R(x)>0. An initial x must be selected in the feasible domain and the simplest way is to put x for i
=

1 and X 1 p equal to a very small value so that all the constraints

are satisfied. The initial K is usually 0.001 which has been found to give reliable behaviour for nearly all cases. If the initial K is chosen very small, e.g. 0.0001, then progress is unsatisfactory, leading either to premature termination or slow convergence. Sometimes, an

211

initial value of 0.01 is preferable if convergence problems arise. The general procedure is now as follows: Minimize Y, keeping K constant. Reduce K by a fixed ratio and minimize the new Y function (a reduction factor of 10 is satisfactory). Reduce K and repeat. It is proved in ref. (98) that under certain conditions successive minima of Y tend to the minimum of f as K is systematically reduced. If the reduction in V for a particular K is small, then the computation is terminated. At the end of the optimization, a very accurate yield function accurate to 1/2% (see ref. (77)) is evaluated at a large number of points in each part of the pressure vesseL The maximum value of is found and denoted by Y0. Since V0 is quadratic then l/[ is the

required reduction factor to make the stress system statically admissible. If Y0 <i no reduction factor is required. The above description is rather brief. For further details see ref. (89).

212

APPENDIX 2 Program NUNMESH n FI N (L 0, PL=21))(J) 1 L t 2 CATALOC,(TAPE?,N0D1,STS6A) 3 PF n (;PAM N0jC (INPUT,TAPF2,TAPE1INPUT) 4 t)I M EFJST0I' N'JN(Si)) ,I3(3(50,),NOS(51D,COX(5OP3) S I M E'jcIo t Ii-'? (2u[',3) P? (?flfl) ,1 p 3 (200,3) , p 3 (200) 6 LH1 (31),L?(31J),LN3(30),LN4(311),LU5(3D), 7 , p (20(1,2) L J ,A (3(1) ,L)7 (U) , uo D (2C 9 DI 1 ENSION Li (30) ,L2(3U) ,L3 (31) ' L 4 (3(J) L5 (30), in L6 (30) L7 (31F ,L (fl) L (31) 11 EAF)(1 ,5)RS,TS'rc,Tc,TT,pu,rF,Zc,Zp 5 F(PlPT(QF7?) 1? LI'D(i ,7) P1 ,PVAX,!STIT,IPRI .nOAT(?F;_?,7Y,?I5) 7 16 PFA I (1 ,) 'T?P r )c)iA1(Ic) 1 P E n( 1 ,Q) n:; i ,f,?,J3,rS4,C1,LC7,rp 17 c' 'Af('15) I?iA.(i ,1fl) IO(Di ,I0PD2,1CPD3,I0hp+,10r)S,Iflrh,I0RD7 1 lfl FPtT(7T) ;' p 21 1'L'\)(l ,11 ) iP1 ,t!'?,1P3,u)s4,IPS5,1PSc,1S7 AT(7T5) 11 (1 , 1 ?) FF ,L' 1,'f1,ET r4,1r(4rifl2) i 24 TF (7PF0rfl) :iP=fl 25 Afl3 26 L 1 L A 0 +5 27 Si L,2Lf'1 +5*3? L A 3=1 A? + 5 S3 2 LA4LA3+5*I'14 3n LASLA4+16 31 Lf\5LA5+1 1 3? IF (TT.LF_fl.') LIUILAS+3 33 IF (TI_GTIJ..4_AID_TT_LT1c3) LAULAS+5 34 3'; IF (TT_F q _1_ fl ) L\iJLAS+7 36 LA P 1 AU+5*9p4-3 IF (TT_L_fl_4) LACLAI'+S 37 IF (TT_GT_06) LACLAP+1O 38 30 I F (TI .L F 0 .4) LP6LAC+1 0 4fl IF (TT.GT_fl_4) LA6LAC+5 LA7=LA6+5*rlCl 41 L A R LA? +5 *9 C? 4? I fl F 43 44 P1=3.1 41 527 IF(TT..FQ..i..t)) Go TO 13 45 Fi =PC+TC+? .fl*RtJ 46 67 E Z I S i I (P S * *2 E V 1 * *2) 48 TIIti(P1/2_I1 ATA?((Fy1 /FZ1 ) )*57_295( 40 Fy2RC+TC+RU T S P I TI * IS 50 F/?SORT C (FS+TSr'H+IflI)**2EY2**2) 51 711F7? 5? TdI!2(0I/2..()ATAIJ(FY1/EZ?))*';7.258 53
?2 ? * I * 9 R

213 54 5c 56 57 5R 50 6fl 61 6? 63 64 65 66 67 6R 69 70 71 7? 73 74 7c 76 77 70 c n 1
C,

FZST((S+TS)**EY1**2)

18

TiI:=(PIf2_1)-AT14lJ(FY1/EZ3fl*57.2058 FZ4ST(!S**21:Y?**2) TUII4("I/2.(1-ATA1J(1-Y2/FZ4))*57_2Q58 FZ6E7?-iU T;II'5(PT/2.')TAJ(FY2/EZ5))*57_2058 F H 2 S R T ( F Y 1 * * 2+ E Z 2 * * 2) s("?T(EY2**2+Ez5**2) C+TC E y F Z 6 S R I ( s ** 2- E y 3 * * 2) flht=(PI/2.0-ATA((EY3/FZ6))*57_295R IF CTT.F('.1_fl) DELTHTHU6.-TliO IF (IT_HE_i_fl) DFLTHTHU1 -TOO fT4DFLTM/1 5_I) 1 (1 1 i 0+3.5* I ' T,(?T01+3_5*r)TH. T3Ti'?+3 .I)*rTH T}-i4T 1 3+3 - ()*DTH TF (TT.'JF_l_fl) GO TO 12 F z7SiRT ( ( P s 4 IS) THlI7(PI/2.1iATA(Ey3/FZ7))*57_2058 TH' I l =T'(6+ (T111J6-1R4) *3.0/4 _(] ii''3T4 (T I iII7-TH6)*3 _fl/4 _fl T(i.=T1I1 + ( r'6-Toti 1) / 2 C 1,(,S=T u J3 + (TU7-THIi3) I? [
F 1 S + T c

,(.

A=SJPI(IS**2+(PS+TS)**2_2_floS*(PS+TS)*COS((TF(,I3_THiJ1) 1 /57_2 Q 5) ) S1'!!(PS+TS)*S1r((TiitJ3_TFiU1)/57?95)/ roc'=c')kT (1 .0-s INP**2) (S I ii , CO SO) p =P I -H 5'='S*SIi (0) / (PS+? _fl*TS/3_fl) C)1S'P1(1.flSIrD**2) Tt1i2=THtI1 + (PT-A-D) *57 .2958 rk?=rS+20*Ts/3_fl 7 1= F P 2 * S I N (1 H ii? / 57.29 5 R) 1? 71=S(T((RS+TS)**2.RC+TC)**?) 7 CZO+7C Z271+(ZCZ1)*2_fl/S_fl 7 P =70-7 P 711 = 7 C -70 7 L fl U = 7 0-71' WJTF (2,19) fS,TS,HC,TC,TT,1UJ,BE,ZLIP,ZLOW 19 FONInT(IH '3HRS = ,F51 ,1X,3HTS,F4.?,1X,31-JRC=,F5_2, 11 x , 3T C=, F6 .2,1 X , 3011=, F6 2, H P , F 32,1 x , tE,F4 1 21,3WZC,F4.1,1X,3I(Zp,F4l) NJf'IPL A N F 'IL = 7 'niV,1,1j,U,1,1,1,fl,(FGrJL,1,ijsTF,1j),Ofl,IpRI 21 FOP1A 1(15,611,14 '315,2 Fl (2.1 '15) WPTTF(?,51 ) 11,0,0,0 51 F C) p in T (4 1 5) WflTTF(?,53) 0 53 F) P in T ( J 5) PIN 11..flfl7 WHTTF(?55) 1 ,0,1 ('0iT0L 55 F OP 1 A T (6 1 5, Fl _3) WHTTF (25?) fl,fl,fl 57 FOP'lAT (311 fl) 1' PP
I )''U

8 90 91 9? 93 94 06 97 9R 99 ion
101 11)? 1(13 104 11)5 1(16 11)7

i'YTff()

rc:,

-,,I '''"

1 OR
11)0 11 0 111 ii? 113 11 6 115 116

117
lie,

11 120 121 1?? 1 ?3 124 12 1 ?6 127 128 129 1 30 131 13? 133 C 134 C 135 C 136 137 138 130 14 P 141 14? 143 1.44 1 4c 1 4A 147 14 149 150 151 15? 153 154 155 156 157
158

214 t.J ITTE (2,59) NPP,1 ,O,0 59 F0P1T(4I5) JcTTF(2,63) 1,3,LA2,LA?+3,Ln4,LA 4 +3,LAS,L AS+1 ,LAU,LAII+3, iL1.A,LA6^3,LA7,LA7+3,LAR-5,LAR 63 F1,P1AT(1615) !ON (1) =1 IflhJ (2) 3 0 (1) 1 (2) =0 C)v(1,1)=COX(2,1)fl.fl CO"C(l ,2)=RS CO (22)S+TS COY (1,3)C0X (2,3)=THO DO 2 1=1,1C) j pp (P 1) = r r; ('1,4) =1130 (M, 5) = 1 PU (I's 6) =1 2 TMF)(M,flIPtl(1,3)0
F3O I PJDARY cODIT1O:S IN SPHERE

THFI(1 ,?)=1 (1 .. 3) = 1
ItR (?,?)1
I
[)()

(
/

2,3)
,_1

1
-,

150 160 1 hi 162 163 1 64 1 65 16 A 167 1 68 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 1 7A 177 178 170

1 2(1 F() 1 AT(1 'x,I4,6I5,3F1J.3,I5) 11 ,S1 r() 3 Ti1'(,1)=Ifl P ( 1,:+)1F'r(F',5)11i0(l',6)1 T,P ('',7)=I''.(',3)=fl 36 C)X (,1 )=U_) CAl L CO(IP'j (S1 ,LtJ1,S,TS, rH),TH1 ,IRU,(J,1 ) CALL CO(J P I)('2,LP1 ,i'S,TS,T141 ,TH2,IP.3,O,1 ) CALL CO0P1) (JS3,LA2,S,TS,TH2,TH3,IL1 f',fl,1 ) CALL COORI' (iS4,LA3,S,TS,T)'3,TH4,Ifl,(,1 ) T H c = T 4 ^2 - I * (T H U 1 1 '4 ) / 3 . C (T H 1 = (TWI1 TH6) /6.0 r)Tl=(TpI3_T,44) /6_C) DATA (L U 1 (U) ,:=i 8)/l ,3,1,3,9,1 112,16/ DO 30 :1=1,8 30 lON(r;)=LA4+LNl(n) DO 31 =1.R,? NoS(rl)=1 31 CUY('1,?)=PS f'H) 32 ,1?,8,? tJOS (il)U 32 COX(M,?)RS+Ts DO 33 33 CoY ( 3)TH+TrIl *FLOAT ( (v+1 ) /2) Do 34 1=?,.S,? 34 COX(1,3)=T14+r)TH2*FLOAT(/2) DC) :38 1 = 1 ,8 38 WtT(?,?1)) 'ow(r),(Inn(,N),N=1 ,6),(COX({I,J),N1,3), 1 NOS (M) DATA (LN2(I) ,i1=1 6)/1 ,4,5,7,7,1 1 / DATA (LN7(,) ,;i1 6)/1 ,4,5,9,9,1 1 / IF (TT;T_O_4) GO TO 44 DC) 40 .11,4 411 NON (U) = LA5+L'2 (1) o in 4(, 44 DO 45 '1,6 45 J'JOM (l1)LA5+Lr.7 Ci) 66 Do 41 11 '6,?
' ( )

i'TF (2,?fl) H

ii',;(),

(IR(r,N) ,u = 1 ,6) , (Cox(u,rJ),N = 1 ,3)

215
1611 11
1 ?
40 I Cl -

I ?34 3
186

187 188
1 8Q

I .fl 191 19? 19. 194 I 9A 1 07 108

100 2(111 7(11 ? (1

41 Noc(M)=1 DO 4? ri=?,6,? 4? tJOS()() C3Y (1 ,2)COX (32)RS C') '1 (2,?) C o> (, ? ) = s + is CY (4,?) =C O X (5,7) =ER? CO Y (1 ,3)=TH4+5 .(*DTH1 COX(2,3)TF14+S*DTUI2 Cfl (3,3)T44+(.t)*t)TH1 COX (4,3)COX (5,3)=THU2 CO'< (6,3)TIItJ3 DO 48 M1,6 48 %'PJTF(?,?0) F'OW(M) , (IrlR(r',N) ,U1 ,6),(COX(il,N),N1,3),
1 oc CM)
M

O)' I (1 )LAS+1 P't')h) (?)LP II 0 c (1) 1 OS (2)0 CC) ' (1 ,? ) = r S C 0 Y (7,?) = R 5

CY(1 ,3)=THI4

C') (?,)T)4J5 F)') 511 1 ,2

5(1 .)TTF(2,?l)

216 ?n5 ?fl" ?L'7 71) 21 fl 211 21? 213 214 215 21 717 8 22(1 ??1
22?

1'' ' C
C

CYI I'U'PJ CAL coOrDJr!/TLS

(-

H')! (1) L. !+ 1 ;+3 '''' (?)L (I) 1 uc (7) - C C) Y (1 .. 2 ) = P C CX(?,?)=Pc^TC CUY(1 ,3)=zP
C1)Y(?,3)ZP

DO 71) M=1,2 711 1 !)1TTI(2,71 )

1 J 0 S (M)

NON(M) ,

(I13P(,) ,U1 ,6) ' (C0X(1 , I 1 ) ,N1 ..3)

223
?24

225 226
227

228 22 2311 231 73?

71 FOP'1AT (iN , 14,6t5 ,3F1 j_3,I5) IF (ZPEO.zfl..oR.rj p .EQ.fl) GO TO 75 CAI.L COORD (HP,LAU4-3,RC,TC,ZP,70,11111,fl,C) 75 IF (TT_L c fl_ L ) i=1 IF (TT(,T_u1_6_)[)_TT_LT.1.0) FJ2 IF (TT.rO..l_P) o To 77 CALL COORD ()J,LP?,RC,TC,ZO,ZU,IBB,Q,fj) IF (TTLFO_4) J2 IF (TT_1,Tfl_6AiD _TT_LT_1 .0) !11 CALL CooRr)(J,L p c,rC,Tc,ZU,71 ,IR,P,C)) GO TO 811 77 CALL COOI'c(3,LAP,RC,TC,zC,71 ,IN1O,[1) 811 C6LL COCPD(JC1 ,LP6,rC,TC,Z1,7.2,TR,(1,0) C C' C ROIIHDAPY CONDIT IOJS IN CYL ItJDER I fl 11 (2,?) 1 TEifl(4,?)1 T (1 q ( 6 .. 7 ) = 1 CAl L C C C
COO P D

235 237 ?38

730

((C?,LA7,NC,TC,Z?,ZC,II3, 1 .0)

24fl 241 74?

APPLIED LOADS DATA

4'

216 ?4 ?44 LS12kIS1+1 L S 2 2* 'i S 2 +1 LS2*JS+I L S 4 = 2 * ;j S 4 + 1 I SLS1 +LS2+L3+LS4 I S.' 7 L sii3 LCJZ3 JF (ZP.F Q _Z U ) LPY1LPY?C IF (Z_t i F_Z0) LPy1LPY?2ANP+I IF (TT,LF_fl_4) c;fl TO Qfl LCJV15 LCJV?3
Ct) TO 95

247 ?48 ?5fl 251 25? ?5 254

25

25 257 250 261) ?61 2 6? 2e 2r4 ? 5 C C C 2 271 277 273 274 ?7f 277 278 27 21i 281 28? 283 C 284 C 785 C 286 -, i) r 0 268 289 ?9P 291 2 ? 206 295 29eS 297 208 29 31)1) 301 30? 30 31)4 31)5

91) L C I vi = 3 LCJY?5 95 LC1 Y=2*rJC1+1 L C 2 V 2* !' C ? + 1 I CR 7 = : 'L0ADYLS+L SJ +1 Sil+LPY1 +LPY2+L CJ VI +L CJ Y2+LC1Y+LC2Y NLOADZ=LS+LS,J+LSU+LCJZ+LCl2Z 'JLflAD'JLOAOY+iLflPDZ
I OAL CI?VF T-1 STF+1

' : T T (?1 ifl) iLAr1 ,IiSTE1 i,' p rl)p \T(T'J5) .T (F (?, 1 ?) 1 ,1STU1 1:? FirT(?J5) I' (1 , 1) =A P (1 .. 2) C .J!
rj M5 11,NSTF

J =FLLT (I) T E FL 0 A I (U STE) J = 1 +1 A p ( J,1 )41 11)5 AP(J,2) =p Ax*SoRT(1 _O(I\I.AJSTE)**2*(1 .0p1**2/prIAx**) 1 / (1 flAIJSTE)**?) ( !p JrE(?,lQS) ((AP(1,fJ),U=1,2),i=1,NSTE1) 1 0i FOPOAT (8F11)_3) I or.r,S DATA DO 112 1'=l ,'JLOAI)Y 1 P2 (1 , 2) 2 112 IP?(M,3)1 DC) 113 11=1 ,HLOP DZ 113 13('1,3)=1 I Ill T P / 5 7.2 58 T1Ti1 /57258 TH?=TH2 / 57.2958 Tii=T03/ 57 2 9 58 T 4 = 1 4 / 57. 2 5 8 T 1011 T Hill / 57 .2958 TO' 16=1006 / 57.2958 CALL IHLTIS(i'S,LSl ,L I\0,THC,TI]i ,1P2,1P3,P?,P3,cJ) CALL 1ilLTIS(,LS,LA1,Tifl,Tl7,Ip2,Ip3,p?,p3,i1) CALL TILTIS("S,LS3,LA2,TH?,TH3,Jp?,Ip3,p?,p,fl) CALL 1 UL T I c (S,LS4,LA3,TH3,TH6,IP?,JP ,P?,P3,Q) DATA (LN4 (M) 1=1 7)/-2,1 ,4,,1?,17,?1/ DO 118 :'=i ,L SJ 118 1 P7(1,1) = i P 3 (1 ,1) =LA4+L'4 ( i ) /

3fl6 307 30 3QQ 310 311 31? 313 314 316 31 317 31 310 3?fl 321 3?? 3.3 3? 3?5 3? 327 7 ()() .31 33? 33 3 L.

217 CM L [ht,LTIS(PS,LSJ,LA4,TH4,THU1,TP?,1P3,P2PF'3hl ) II7(1,1)=IP3(l,1)LAS-6 II'? (2,i)1 P 3 (2,1)LAS+1 TO? (3l1) =11 1 3 (3,1)=LAP CALL 1IILTIS(p,L5tf,LASFTFUl ,1H1j6,1 p 2,1r3, p ?, p 3F1 ) ci(r1_o*Pc+rc)*TC/32.[] S1=(2_fl*pC+TC)*TC/4_() S(_fl*PC+7_0*TC)*TC/32.0 s=(?_c1*rc^Tc)*Tc/2.0 1P3(1 ,1)LAU+1 I P3 (2, 1) LA '+2 103(3,1 )LAU+3 P3(1 )=S1 c3 2)s2 P3(3)S3 rn 11 M=1,3 119 WIUTF(2,120) (IP3(P,N) ,i' = l ,3) ,P3 (ii) 120 F0PIPT (3I5 Fl fl_3) IF (7P_FO_Z) c) TO 135 I = L A +3 1,LPY1,2 ro 130 1 311 i'?( 1,1 )=1-5

1=

i+

r'ii 1 < 1

=?,I'Y1 ,2

1.4-. 131 j? ( l ,1 )1-3 c, L.

(

33c
3Th

337
33
330

340 341 36? 343

344
346 346

347
346
340

I .L c\t 1. ILTIC (?C,LC2Y,LA7,Z2,ZC,I1?,P2,U) CAl J(1 )LA-2 j3 (?)LA'-1 Ii(3)A8 TOPZf)_5*PC**2 p 3(1 )=TOP*S1 IS r'3 (2)T0P*S2/S p 3 (3) TO'*S3/S Do 150 M=1,3 150 JOTTF(2,1?fl) (Jp3(.i,fJ) r = i ,3),P3 (H)
C

1uIT1c(Pc+rC,L'Yi ,LA,z:1,z p , Ip 2,r2,1 ) LTJ.C(pC,LPY?,L+3,7PF7H, t'2,2,1) LTTC (iC,LCJY1 ,LAp,Zr,ztI,I,P'l0) 1I LTIC(C,LCJY?,LPC,Z tJ ,l1 ,I,,P?,C) 1 'LT1C (C,LC1 YLfn 6 'Z I ,z2,iF7,P2,

T!TTIL t'')NDJTIONS
t.fl'JTF(?,3flfl) U
300 F0PIAT(15) ELF . )FT TIJPUT td F(P = jS 1 +US? CALL ELE i E f JT( 1 JE(1P,R,10PI)1 ,IPS1 ,3,,1 ,3,7,4,2,5,'OD,O, 1NTvPF,EE,j,1,yD,ET) NE(P('JS3+tjS4 L AL A2 CAI.L LFrtEuT(TF1p,6,IoPD?,Tps2,LA+5,LA+3,L_?,LA,LA+4, 1 LA+1 ,!P i ,L/\+2,j0I),fl,uTy p E,EF,Uv Y0,FT)

35 0 351 35?

35-s
354 355 35/i .357

35R
359

360
361 36? 363

N110=7

366
365
36/i

367
366

PATA (Li (N) ,14=1 R) /6,4 2-1 ,5,1,fl,2/ P A T .4 (L 2 (") 1 1 0)/ 6 , 6 , - 1 , C , 7 , 2 , C , 3 / 'D ATA (L3 ( ) ,:i=i ,3) /16,12,4,6,13,9 5 ,ifl/ r)IkTA(l 4(!1),rJ=1,,)/i(l,iI,,6,',i5,1fl,7,11/ DATA (L5 (N) I? -,i,i?,1,??' 17,r,18/

36 371 37? 373 374 375 376 377 37R 37

380
371)

218
PATA (L6 (U) ,U=1 ,) /2523,13i
DATA(L7(11),01 Pt) 21)0

5,?4,1R,14,19/

J1

381 38? 3 P 5 33tc 387 3R 3F 30fl 391

3 t) 7 31

rIor(1,U)=LA4+L1(t4) N01(2,J)LA4+L?((J) (3' J ) = LA'+ 4-L3 (r ) "O' (4 U) LA4+L4 ('4) N)r(5,N)LA4+L5(rJ) '() (A,J)=L,4+L6(r) 20)' UU' (7,H ) LA4+L7 (N) N1r'(1,7)HOD(1,7)NOD(1,7) rJoP(?,7)=JoD(2,7)_r'o(?,7) 01(5 ,7) (5, 7) NOD (5 ,7) r'nnc7,7)='jc)n(7,flrinD(7,7)

384

CALL FLE EiT(!E(P,P,,IIRD3,IPS3,11 ,N2,03,r4,J5,N,FJ7 1 r0 , ifl [) ' 1 , OTYPE ,FE, 101, Yfl,ET) IF (TT.LF_(J_6) UFGP=2 IF (TT.GT,fl_4 p J[)_TT_LT_1 fl) NEGP4 IF (TT_FQ_1_fl) 'JF';P=6 ()MT1(L8(l'),11,)/2,5,7,1C,12,15/ DA T A (L9 (U) ,1 ,o) 1(1,2,5,7,10,12/
rr 22) 1=') Fc;P l'r (r, )LP+L(r) '' (",2)=L4.'+L9C) N 4 ?4'i =1 ,rF;r' 7 ( ') = i '-(i ( ' 4 )L- A';+ 7 ) j 241) ''tr (,)=LAs+ +1 C fI L FL E E'T ( iF G P ,A, I JQD4 , I P s4 ,! 1 ,) 2, '43 ,4 ,i 5 ,H6 ,r47 , iOU, 1 , IT VP F, FE , 1 J1 , Y fi, FT ) 1
\t) ( ,

39
3(

3 () A

3 ()7

;r (,A)$

3, Q 411 401
41)? 4()4

4U3

L ML A'I

4(15

41) A 407 4n8

409 411)
4 11 /41? 413 414 415 41 A 417

CMLL FLEI'ENT CUE ,I)D5, 1PS5 ,LA+6,L A+1 ,LA+3,L A+8, 1LA+4,LA^?,LA4-5,LA#?,Uor,O,rJrYPE,FE,1Ir',yfl,ET) NE() 4C1 LALA6 CALL FLEr'E'JT(NFGP'8, IOPD6,IPSA'LA+3,LA'2,LA,LA+5P iLA^1,LA1,LA+2,LA+4,FJOr,C,NTYPE,E,1J,Y(),ET) J E P = IC 2 LALA7
CALL FL F E1iT(HFG p ,I p U7, Tl)S7,LA+3,LA?,LP,LA+5, 1LA+i ,LA-1 ,LA4-2,LA+4,rJon,C,'TYPE,FE,IIr',YU,ET) 9 P 1 T E (2,990)

AiR 410 420 421 42? 42 4? 4 42 42A 4? 7 42R

62 631) 4 31

991) FOPr 1 P.T (5H\\\\S) W P IT F ( 2 , 990 ) q99 FJPMAT (/+H****)

STfl1 FIJr' S)IPPOIITIUE COOPD (N(-,LA,I,T,B1 ,07,J2P,J1,J'<)

DIE0STOU U(P'(10)PTuL3(S(I,6),COX(1U,3),Nfls(1O)
P0 11) 11 ,1(1,2 rior1(r )LP+( 1+1 )/2

11)

) ( fi ) = 5

=?,1i),? D0 15 NflH (I))=L/)^5*(IIF-1 )411/2 15 NO c ('4) =1) P(j fl 1=1 ,li)

21)

(jY (",l

)fl_(1

219 43? 433 434 435 436 437 43

439

44n 441 46? 443 444 445 446 447 449 65fl 41 45? 453 454 455 4SA 457 45 450
4 ofl

C((1,flCOX(2,2)R C U (3?) = C ') X (4 ' 2) = P + I c005,?)=CnX(6,2)=R +T 1? .0 COX (7,?) COX (.; , 2) CU'( (9?) CO X ( J 02) P + I (1 ,3)=C)X (3,3) = FM +)) C0Y(?,3)=COX(4,3)2-O CU (5 3)=COX (7,3) COX (0,3) =3i +2.fl*D C0Y(,3)COX(,3)COX(1Q,3)E2 IF (,JRF11) (;O TO 35 1)0 25 1i,11) rR(r,1)=I13U(rI,4)=rUP(t,5)=n33(t.,6)=1 25 IUO (t,?)If(1,3)fl 35 IF (JX_EO_i)) GO TO 55 =1 ,1 (I 1)0 411 41) WIUTF(?,45) 'ON (M) , (Ir'R(1,N) ptJi ,6) p (COX( 71 ,N) ,N1 ,3) 1 NOS (1) 45 F0 1 T(i HX,14,615,3F1 fl.3'IS) () TO 9(1 55 1)') 611 i=1,10 60 WRTTr(?,5) tQ(r), ( iUJfl (',!) 'Hl ,) , (Cox(11,u) ,N=1 ,3) CV) 1 65 FO PI AT(1H ,I6,6I5,3F1)3,15) 9(1 PETU? F'.r c!p)lTJr F 1I I LTIS ( I 'S,LSC,L 4,IiIl 'T'?'IP?pIP3,P?,3,IpK) ni Fsroi IP?(21P,3) ,rr3(20),3) ,p2(?rrj),p3(?nrl)
IF (T'FJ1) c) 1t) 3 1' = L i -2 () 1 11,LSC,' 7=1 +5 I P? (i, 1) I 5 1=[ A-2 DI' 2 12,LSC,2 11+5

4r,1
462

463 464 4 66 467 46 R 460 47n 471 47? 473

/474

TP2 (:1,1 )1-2 2 1r3(i,1)=I-2 3 PT1P_5*(T)?2-TH1 )/FLOAT(LSC-1) Si: Sr ri (D TI I) P2(1)2_fl*RS**2*SI*COS(TH1)**2/20 TIT141 J=L SC-i DO 5 (l=7,J r H +2 (3* DI H 5 P2(l)?_fl*RS**?*SI*C0S(TH)**? 2 Cl SC)?_r)*PS*?*SI*C1'S (TH2)**?/20 P3(1 )=RS**?*I*SI:s (2_(J*TH1 )/2_O THTH 1 1)() 10 12,J TII=Tl+?_fl*r)TH in P3 (1)flS**?kSI*SI!I (2_H*TH) P3(LSC)PS**?*SI*SIJ(2.0*TI12)/?_fl ''O 25 t1,LSC 25 VP hF (2, 5fl) C 1P2 (H,iJ) ,N=1 , 3) ,P2 (T) 1)0 31) 11,LSC 30 iPTTE(?,50) (1P3(i,i),N1,3),P3(1) 50 FOPMAT(31 5, Fl 0.3) P [TOIfl' FlJr SURI ? OOTI FJF 1'It TIC (PC ,LSC L 4,71,7 7 , I12 P2, IPK ) p r M r I'4c r (jrr TI'?(?U11,3) ,i'?(?Cfl)
S

475 476 47? 478 479 ) r, 4Ufl 431 4 ?

433

434 4R5 486

487

43 R 430 490 4 91 49? 493 494

220
495

407 40 400
5011 5111 511?

406

IF (JPK_FO.1) GOTO 12 I=LA-2

1)0 5 11 ,LSC2

1=1+5

5 102

(I'1 ,

1) 15

1=1. P-2

1)0 10 i=?,LSC,2
1=1+5

5(14 5nc

11) IP?(T'J ,l )=I-2

12 DZ11_5*(Z2Z1)/(LSC._1) P2(1)P2(LSC)RC*DZ J = L Sc-i DO 15 M?,J 15 P?(1)2_0*PC*D7 1,LSC 1)0 ?fl IJ PTTE( 7,31)) (IP2(1,Ij),N=1,3),p2(r)
30 F()r'IAT (315, PE TOP')

507 51) R

5 CI 6

510

51 514

5111 511 51?

Fl 0.3)

F 1)
S'IF01 I TI.'E ELEIF1!T(E(p,tc1)ES,IopDER,IPS,Ij1,tj2,J3,N4, 1 t'5 ,;6 , J7 , i 401), :0DP , JTYF F, c- E ,UI', YO ,FT )
DPrJSI

515
516

H r"

N')(?i,5),N1)(C,C)

517

'1 I TF (2,1 CI)? ;.F' p , UTYI'F ,C , NOl) ES, TflPE 1

51

1 11 FO P AT(3T4,2I,?Ii 2 L314)
rTr (2,15) 1,0_fl 15 FP H'^T(15,Flfl_l ) I'PTT (2,?IJ) FE,11,Yr,,ET 2 ( FO P ) t\T (4 Fl 11.2) 1)u 25 '1=1,'E11 1 '' ( : , I )
t" ')

510 57(1 52 524

5??

521

526
52? C. - ( 5 ? 9

5 ?.5

i .

( ,

2)

=I1

3) = PS

5311 51

25 N0 (ri , 5) =11 IF ('0[W.E0_1) '0 TO 31

,NEGP 1)0 31) . r1 HOfl(1,l)=1114- 5*(;I - 1)

532 533 534 535 536 537

53R

No(1,2)I2+5*("_1)
0(r,3)J34-S*(1-i)
J1) (0,5) =J5 +5* (1-1 )

("O n (' .. 6) =;6^5* ( . 1-1 )

O1)(.i,7)=:7+5*(l-1 ) 30 Ilf ( i ,R ) '+5* ( 1-1 ) 31 r)) ? ! 1 ,0EP

530

5411
541

549

54-i EI'1) 5 44 \ \\ \S 54 c 67.5n3_il 111.711 546 3_Ol) 16.50 42 567 2 54 4 4 4 4

54?

32 WRTTE(?35) (HOo(t(,o),N=1,5),(Nor(I,tJ),u=1,8) 35 FOPUAT(15,13,I?,21)X,1015) P E TI P

3_So

1_Un

fl.5'I

30.)

25_fl

1_)

2 6 6 5
3

551) 551 552

p 661 Rfl _f1fl

3 (1

4 1 0.35

3 3 (1 0 264.110

1)
0.1111

55.

*A**
-k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -k * * * * * * * * * * *

221 APPENDIX 3 Derivation of Strains from Displacement Field

Due to lack of strain output from the program NONSAP, the strains have to be derived from the output of nodal displacements y and z in both V and Z directions respectively (the coordinate system Y-Z is defined in Fig. 5.1). For an axisymmetric shell, the circumferential strain eeand meridional strain e, are expressed as follows:

e 0 =-(vcotp +w)

(1)

1 , dv
= --

(2) v is
the meridional

in which w is the radial displacement and di splcement.

For a point at which the strains are to be calculated, the displacement y can be resolved into two components which are in the radial and meridional directions. The displacement z can be resolved in the same way. After a simple manipulation, the displacements w and

can be expressed by the nodal displacements y and z, i.e.,

w=ysinq ^zcosq

(3) (4)

v= ycosq -z sint.p
Hence, the equation(l) becomes

e9= RsftP
To calculate the meridional strain e,,the term dv/dp in equation (2) is evaluated by the finite difference method, i.e. dpis the angle

222

subtended at the centre of the sphere by the arc joining two adjacent nodes in the same meridian and

dvis the difference of the two nodal,

displacements in the meridional direction, that is

dv - V 1 V_1 - ( Y+i cos'.p11 - z 1sn P+1 ) - ( y. cos-p 1 d Lp - 4 + - (P- 1 in which ..p1 , p

1 s in(p1)

1 ,y 1 ,y_ 1 ,z 1 ,z_ 1 , v 1 and

v_1

denote the values

of two adjacent nodes. Note that we define Once

dv/dp has been evaluated, w can be obtained from equation e is therefore derived from equation (2).

(3) and the strain