Proceedings of ASME PVP2011

2011 ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference

July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

PVP2011-57108
DETERMINATION OF SHAKEDOWN LIMIT LOADS FOR A
CYLINDRICAL VESSELNOZZLE INTERSECTION VIA A SIMPLIFIED
TECHNIQUE
Hany F. Abdalla
Assistant Professor of Mechanical Design
and Solid Mechanics
Mechanical Engineering Department
The American University in Cairo
hany_f@aucegypt.edu

Maher Y. A. Younan
Professor of Mechanics and Design
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies
School of Sciences and Engineering
The American University in Cairo
myounan@aucegypt.edu

ABSTRACT
In the current research, the shakedown limit loads for a
cylindrical vesselnozzle intersection is determined via a
simplified technique. The cylindrical vesselnozzle
intersection is subjected to a spectrum of steady internal
pressure magnitudes and cyclic inplane bending moments on
the nozzle. The determined shakedown limit loads are utilized
to generate the Bree diagram of the cylindrical vesselnozzle
intersection. In addition, the maximum moment carrying
capacity (limit moments) and the elastic limit loads are
determined and imposed on the Bree diagram of the structure.
The simplified technique outcomes showed excellent
correlation with the results of full elasticplastic cyclic
loading finite element simulations.

Mohammad M. Megahed
Professor of Solid Mechanics
Dept. of Mechanical Design and
Production
Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University, Egypt
mmegahed47@yahoo.com

system of stresses within the yield limit, then P is a lower

bound shakedown load set and the structure will shakedown.
Extensive and crucial research has been conducted on various
vesselnozzle intersection configurations to determine their
limit loads through experimental testing and numerical
analyses. Some research efforts succeeded in developing
empirical equations, for limit load determination, based on
both the experimental and numerical outcomes combined with
statistical analyses. Despite conducted faithful efforts to
determine the elastic shakedown limit loads of specific vessel
nozzle intersections [5-7], elastic shakedown limit load
determination of vesselnozzle intersections, in general, still
represents a virgin territory. In the current study, the elastic
shakedown limit loads are determined through the simplified
technique utilizing cylindrical vesselnozzle intersection
geometric dimensions taken from Wu et. al. [8]. Additionally,
a limit load verification study is conducted and the finite
element (FE) outcomes are compared against the limit load
experimental test outcomes of Wu et. al. [8]. The FE outcomes
showed confidence in the developed FE model utilized within
the current research.

INTRODUCTION
Pressure vessel components are often subjected to the
combined effect of simultaneous steady and cyclic load types.
The combination of both the steady and the cyclic loads often
results in exceeding the material initial yield strain ( 0 ) within
several parts or regions of the pressure vessel structure. It is
the objective of the designer to ensure that exceeding the
initial yield strain ( 0 ) would not lead to either development
of progressive damage due to low cycle fatigue (reversed
plasticity) and/or collapse due to incremental accumulation of
plastic strain (ratchetting) associated with every load cycle.
The upper ceiling of loads which does not cause either
reversed plasticity and/or ratchetting is the elastic shakedown
boundary. The utilized simplified technique, in the current
research, was successfully verified and rigorously tested
against both closed form solutions of classical shakedown
benchmark problems [1-2] and ratchetting experimental
outcomes of pressurized pipe bends subjected to reversed in
plane bending [3].
The term shakedown was initially introduced into the
context of solid mechanics in 1936 by Melan [4] through the
shakedown theorem stated as follows: For a given load set P,
if any distribution of selfequilibrating residual stresses can
be found (assuming perfect plasticity) which, when taken
together with elastically calculated stresses, constitute a

NOMENCLATURE
D
Cylindrical vessel inside diameter
Modulus of elasticity
E
Vessel length
L
Internal Pressure
P
PEEQ
Equivalent plastic strain
T
Cylindrical vessel wall thickness
M
Moment Load
Straight pipe mean diameter
Dm
Straight pipe fully plastic moment
MP
Internal pressure to initiate yielding of a
PY
straight pipe
Material initial yield strength
Y0
Nozzle mean diameter
d
Elasticplastic solution increment
i
Nozzle length
l

Copyright 2011 by ASME

r
t

E
ELPL
r
req

Vesselnozzle fillet radius

Nozzle wall thickness
Material initial yield strain
Poissons ratio
Elastic stress components
Elasticplastic stress components
Residual stress

through the ECM and resolved most of the limitations

encountered by Nadarajah et. al. [18].
Mackenzie and Boyle [13] utilized the ECM to determine
the shakedown limit pressures for internally pressurized thick
walled cylinders and compared the outcomes with analytical
solutions. In addition, Mackenzie and Boyle [13] evaluated the
shakedown pressures for internally pressurized thinwalled
shells with flush nozzles and compared the outcomes with the
analytical solutions of Leckie and Penny [5]. Mohamed et al.
[6] implemented the ECM in evaluating the shakedown
pressure for a radial nozzle of a thinwalled spherical pressure
vessel under internal pressure and thrust load. Muscat and
Mackenzie [7] used a superposition method based on Melans
shakedown theorem and investigated the shakedown response
of axisymmetric nozzles under internal pressure. Muscat and
Mackenzie [7] concluded that the 3Sm method does not
ensure elastic shakedown limit determination; however, it
ensures determination of plastic shakedown limit.
Despite its simplicity and efficiency, Yang et. al. [22]
clarified that the ECM is not as efficient in analyzing complex
structures such as nozzle to cylinder junctions. Yang et. al.
[22] modified the ECM through introducing additional
parameters and renamed the ECM to be the Modified Elastic
Compensation Method (MECM) and determined limit loads
for several nozzle to vessel junctions. The MECM showed
good outcomes when compared with the results of both full
elastic plastic FE analyses and the ASME TwiceElastic
Slope criterion [23].
Polizzotto [24] introduced a modification to Melans
theorem accounting for combined non proportional loading.
Accordingly, Muscat and Hamilton [25] utilized Polizzottos
modification and investigated two benchmark shakedown
problems namely: a thick vesselnozzle intersection subjected
to steady inplane moment and cyclic internal pressure and a
plate with a central hole subjected to biaxial stresses. The
outcomes of the thick vesselnozzle intersection agreed well
with the results of Preiss [26] while the outcomes of the plate
problem agreed well with the ECM solution of Hamilton et al.
[27]. Moreover, the outcomes of both problems agreed well
with the outcomes of full elastic plastic cyclic loading FE
analyses.
Abdalla et al. [2] applied the simplified technique on two
classical benchmark shakedown uniaxial stress problems
namely; the twobar structure, analytically analyzed by
Megahed [28] and the Bree thincylinder problem [11]. The
outcomes of the simplified technique showed excellent
correlation to the analytical results of both problems. Later
Abdalla et al. [29] applied the simplified technique on another
classical benchmark shakedown problem namely: the problem
of a large square plate with a small central hole subjected to
cyclic tensile stresses on the plate edges; thereby, extending
the application of the simplified technique to multiaxial state
of stress problems and accounting for kinematic hardening.
Abdalla et al. also extended the application of the
simplified technique to a long radius 90degree pipe bend
subjected to a spectrum of steady internal pressures and cyclic

Equivalent residual stress

LITERATURE REVIEW
a- Shakedown Analyses
Despite the introduction and establishment of the
shakedown theorem by Melan within the midlate thirties of
the previous century [4, 9-10], active research efforts started in
the midsixties. Most of the work accomplished focused on
determining shakedown domains for pressure vessels [5],
nuclear reactor components [11], and aeronautical applications
[12].
Iterative elastic techniques have been proposed to obtain
rapid and approximate bounds for limit loads and shakedown
limit loads. The Iterative elastic techniques begin with an
initial elastic solution which is modified in an iterative
manner, through a series of linear elastic finite element (FE)
solutions, to redistribute stresses within the structure by
changing the elastic modulii of the elements. The iterations
proceed until a stress distribution in equilibrium with the
externally applied load is reached. The iterative elastic
techniques include the Elastic Compensation Method (ECM)
introduced by Mackenzie and Boyle [13] developed through
an earlier simple method introduced by Marriott [14], the
Dhalla Reduction Procedure proposed by Dhalla [15], the
GLOSS RNode method proposed by Seshadri [16], and the
Linear Matching Method (LMM) introduced by Ponter [17].
Nadarajah et. al. [18] determined limit loads and lower
and upper shakedown bounds of cylindrical vesselnozzle
intersections subjected to internal pressure and inplane
bending moment on the nozzle utilizing the ECM. Nadarajah
et. al. [18] stressed the importance of increasing the load
carrying capacity of pressurized vessels where limited plastic
deformation is acceptable provided avoidance of gross
deformation of the entire structure. The determined limit loads
were compared to lower bound shell solution introduced by
Robinson [19] while the shakedown limit loads were
compared to the results obtained by MacFarlane and Findlay
[20]. The ECM outcomes of Nadarajah et. al. [18] showed
very good agreement with both the results of Robinson [19],
MacFarlane and Findlay [20], in addition to full elasticplastic
cyclic loading FE analyses. Nadarajah et. al. [18] reported that
the determined upper bound limit loads were 50% higher than
the lower bounds. Nadarajah et. al. [18] attributed this
considerable discrepancy due to the lack of proper FE mesh
refinement close to the failure location of the cylindrical
vesselnozzle intersection. Later, Hamilton et. al. [21] utilized
conventional shell elements, instead of brick elements,

Copyright 2011 by ASME

inplane closing (IPC) [1], inplane opening (IPO) and out

ofplane (OP) bending moment loadings [30] employing an
elasticperfectlyplastic material. Additionally, Abdalla et al.
[31] performed a parametric study and generated Bree
diagrams for 90degree scheduled Nominal Pipe Size 10" pipe
bends namely: Schedule 20, Schedule 40 Standard, and
Schedule 80 subjected to a spectrum of steady internal
pressures and cyclic IPC, IPO, and OP bending moment
loadings. Comparison of the generated Bree diagrams of the
scheduled pipe bends revealed that as the wall thickness
increased, both the limit loads and the shakedown limit loads
increased as well.
Vlaciu [32] utilized the simplified technique developed by
Abdalla et al. [1] and determined the lower bound elastic
shakedown limit loads of axisymmetric nozzles attached to
spherical vessels subjected to steady internal pressures and
cyclic through wall temperature gradients. Vlaciu [32]
developed a pseudoclosedform generic model with a
statistical representation based on sampling of data, taken
from the simplified technique output, for a variety of loading
cases. Vlaciu [32] utilized a probabilistic method through
inputting geometrical dimensions, non linear material
properties, and internal pressure magnitudes to determine the
lower bound shakedown load as the desired response variable.
The results were compared with full elastic plastic cyclic
loading FE simulations which revealed that the determined
shakedown load is a lower bound shakedown limit load.

the weld geometry between the real and the FE models are the
major reasons behind the latter findings. Li et. al. [34]
concluded that the limit pressure increases with increasing the
intersection angle.
Fang et. al. [35] studied the elastic behavior of cylindrical
vesselhillside nozzle intersections subjected to outofplane
moments on the nozzles. Five test setups were designed and
fabricated with different hillside nozzle angles. In addition to
the experimental testing, nonlinear FE analyses were
conducted. It was observed that the maximum stresses
occurred on the acute side of the vesselnozzle intersection.
Fang et. al. [35] concluded that the elastic stresses were
minimum when both the vessel and nozzle are symmetric with
the longitudinal plane (i.e. zero hillside nozzle angle).
However, the elastic stresses increase with shifting the hillside
nozzle location the from vessel transverse axis. The nozzle
outofplane displacement was noticed to increase with
increasing the hillside nozzle angel.
Wang et. al. [36] determined the burst pressures of
cylindrical vesselhillside nozzle intersections with different
hillside nozzle angles. Wang et. al. [36] conducted
experimental testing and FE analyses incorporating large
displacement formulation. Comparison of experimental test
results and FE outcomes revealed very good agreement. In
addition, very good agreement was recorded compared with
the empirical equation outcomes obtained by Rodabaugh [37].
Wang et. al. [36] concluded that burst pressure slightly
increases with increasing the hillside nozzle angle.
Building on the successful and encouraging outcomes of
Wang et. al. [36], Xue et. al. [38] performed a parametric
study, utilizing the FE method, to determine an empirical
equation which correlated different geometric parameters to
the burst pressure of cylindrical vesselnozzle intersections.
The parametric study conducted by Xue et. al. [38] included
74 FE models which covered a variety of cases encountered in
industrial applications. Xue et. al. [38] included various
materials within the FE analyses in order to widen the
applicability of the empirical equation. In their FE models,
Xue et. al. [38] assumed no defects within the weld area
between the vessel and the nozzle. Xue et. al. [38] compared
their FE analyses outcomes with the empirical equation
developed by Rodabaugh [37]. Considerable differences were
observed between Xue et. al. [38] FE outcomes and
Rodabaugh [37] solutions in some cases. Xue et. al. [38]
attributed such differences due to the low correlation factor
introduced by Rodabaugh [37] in his empirical equations since
they are based on limited experimental data. The empirical
equation produced by Xue et. al. [38] showed that the burst
pressure increases with increasing the ( t T ) ratio while
decreases with increasing the ( D T ) ratio. Moreover, Xue et.
al. [38] concluded that the effect of the ( D T ) ratio is more
influential on the burst pressure in comparison to the effects of
both the ( d D ) and the ( t T ) ratios.
Liu et. al. [39] developed a technique to determine the
plastic collapse loads of pressure vessels with nozzles through

b- Limit Load Analyses

Sang et. al. [33] performed both experimental testing and
FE analyses and determined the limit moments for nozzles in
cylindrical vessels subjected to outofplane bending
moments. Limit moments were determined for both the
experimental recordings and the FE analyses outcomes
through adopting the ASME TwiceElasticSlope criterion
[23] on the generated momentrotational displacement curves
and the momentstrain curves. The FE analyses outcomes
showed excellent agreement with the experimental recordings
where a maximum percentage error of 7% was recorded. Sang
et. al. [33] concluded that the limit moment increases with
increasing both the ( d D ) and the ( t T ) ratios.
Li et. al. [34] determined limit pressures of cylindrical
vessellateral nozzle intersections with different inclination
angles namely: 30, 45, and 60 degrees with the vessel axis.
Experimental tests were conducted accompanied with FE
analyses. The limit pressures were obtained through applying
the ASME TwiceElasticSlope criterion [23]. Li et. al. [34]
observed that the most critical zone is on the acute angle side
of the lateral nozzle at which plasticity initiated. It was also
observed that the top parts of the lateral nozzles displaced
vertically upward during loading which resulted in increasing
the angle of intersection. The limit pressures determined
through the FE analyses were found to be slightly conservative
in comparison to their corresponding experimental
magnitudes. According to Li et. al. [34], not accounting for
thickness variation within the FE models and the difference in

Copyright 2011 by ASME

FE analyses. The technique utilizes the NewtonRaphson

iterative method through employing the arclength criterion.
The technique outcomes were verified against the recordings
of two experimental test setups and the solutions of empirical
equations obtained by Turner [40], Faupel [41], and
Christopher et. al. [42]. Inconsistencies in results were noticed
between the FE outcomes and the empirical equations
outcomes of the aforementioned researchers. Liu et. al. [39]
attributed the noticed inconsistencies due to the fact that the
empirical equations did not include the effects of both the
nozzles and the material strain hardening. On the other hand,
the technique outcomes showed very good agreement with the
experimental recordings; however, the computational cost was
high.
Gao et. al. [43] reported that cylindrical vessels with
inclined nozzles are more prone to failure compared with
orthogonal nozzles. Experimental testing was conducted on
cylindrical vessels with elliptical heads and lateral nozzles
subjected to increasing internal pressure. Finite Element
analyses were conducted as well in which both elastic stresses
and stress concentration factors were determined.
Gao et. al. [43] reported that the maximum stress and failure
location occurred at the acute side of the lateral nozzle with a
drift angle of approximately 20 degrees from the vessel
longitudinal section. With all geometrical parameters fixed,
Gao et. al. [43] concluded that the stress concentration factors
increase as the nozzle lateral angle increases.
Wu et. al. [8] determined the limit moment of a
cylindrical vessel subjected to in plane bending moment on the
nozzle. The limit moment was determined using both
experimental and nonlinear FE analyses. A parametric study
was conducted through FE analyses in which an empirical
equation was deduced, utilizing nonlinear regression, to
calculate the limit moment for different geometrical
configurations under the same loading conditions. Limit
moments were determined utilizing the ASME TwiceElastic
Slope criterion [23] for both momentrotational displacement
and momentstrain curves. The FE outcomes showed
excellent agreement with the experimental recordings.
Moreover, the deduced empirical equation agreed very well
with both the experimental recordings and the FE outcomes. It
was also concluded that the limit moment is directly
proportional to both the ( d D ) and ( t T ) ratios.

plane moment) is applied. The cyclic load (moment), termed

the reference moment ( M ref ), is monotonically applied and
elastically deforms the structure. The second analysis is an
elasticplastic analysis which involves the application of both
the steady and the cyclic load types in two consecutive
analysis steps. The steady load (internal pressure) is applied in
the first analysis step and causes only elastic stresses within
the structure. The cyclic load (moment) is then applied
monotonically in the second analysis step in an increasing
ramp pattern resulting in structural strains exceeding the
material initial yield strain ( 0 ). Hence, the moment is
incrementally applied and the elasticplastic solution
progresses incrementally.
The residual stress ( r ), scaled to the applied moment
increment ( M i ), is calculated according to Eq. (1) by
subtracting the elastic stress components ( E ) (representing
unloading) from the elasticplastic stress ( ELPL ) components
(representing loading) at every elasticplastic solution
increment ( i ). The elastic ( E ) and the elasticplastic
( ELPL ) stress components are output at all the integration
points within all the elements meshing the structure.

ri ELPLi E

Mi
M ref

(1)

Consequently, a residual stress corresponding to every

stress component is calculated (i.e. rx , ry , rz ,
i

rxy etc.). Then, an equivalent residual stress ( req ) is

i

calculated using the von Mises yield criterion expressed as

follows:

req

ry rz
r
r

1
xi
yi
i
i

2 6 2 2 2
ryzi
rzxi
rxyi

rzi

rx

(2)

The terms rx , ry , rz , rxy , ryz , and rzx are the

THE SIMPLIFIED TECHNIQUE

The simplified technique is explained in detail within
reference [1]; yet, a brief explanation is presented for
convenience. The simplified technique utilizes the FE method,
employs the small displacement formulation, and incorporates
an elasticperfectlyplastic material model to determine the
shakedown limit load.
Two FE analyses are performed. The first is an elastic
analysis performed only once and its output is stored. In the
elastic analysis, no steady load (internal pressure) is applied.
However, the elastic analysis consists of a single analysis step
achieved in one solution increment where the cyclic load (in

residual stress components calculated using Eq. (1). It is

assumed that the analyzed structure is free from any induced
residual stresses resulting from fabrication. Hence, the residual
stresses calculated using Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) are solely due to
the applied cyclic loading conditions during the structure
service. It is also assumed that no local wall thinning is
imposed within the current analysis.
A computer code is developed to read the output of both
the elastic and the elasticplastic analyses and calculate the
residual stress components utilizing Eq. (1) for all integration

Copyright 2011 by ASME

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND LIMIT LOAD

VERIFICATION STUDY
a- FE Modeling
The cylindrical vesselnozzle structure investigated has
almost the same geometric dimensions as the one
experimentally tested and numerically analyzed for limit load
capacity by Wu et al. [8]. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the
cylindrical vesselnozzle structure analyzed. Half a geometric
model is developed in analyzing inplane bending loading on
the nozzle due to the existence of both geometric and loading
symmetry about the xyplane. Table 1 lists the geometric
dimensions of the cylindrical vesselnozzle structure shown in
Fig. 2. Upon performing several parametric analyses, the
vesselnozzle fillet radius was chosen to be 6 mm to avoid
sharp corners resulting in numerical solution singularities and
reduce stress concentrations.

points within all the elements meshing the structure (including

through element thickness integration section points provided
a shell element type is utilized) at all elasticplastic solution
increments. The code then calculates equivalent residual
stresses ( req ) at all the integration points of all elements
i

meshing the structure utilizing Eq. (2) and searches for the
minimum moment increment ( M i ) at which its
corresponding calculated equivalent residual stress ( req )
i

violates the applied von Mises yield criterion. Therefore, the

preceding moment increment ( M i 1 ) is the shakedown limit
moment of the structure since its corresponding calculated
equivalent residual stress ( req ) is either equal to or slightly
i

less than the material initial yield strength ( Y0 ) thereby

satisfying Melan's definition of the shakedown lower bound
theorem.
The elastic limit moment is determined through the
elasticplastic analysis only (representing loading). The
program searches for the minimum moment increment at
which its corresponding equivalent strain ( eqi ) slightly
exceeds the material initial yield strain ( 0 ). Hence, the
preceding moment increment is the elastic limit moment of the
structure since its equivalent stress ( eqi ), during loading, is
either equal to or slightly less than the material initial yield
strength ( Y0 ).
Postelastic shakedown responses (i.e. reversed plasticity
and/or ratchetting responses) are accurately determined via the
simplified technique without the necessity of performing full
elasticplastic cyclic loading FE analyses [1]. However, to
gain profound confidence in the simplified technique
outcomes, full elasticplastic cyclic loading FE simulations
are performed utilizing the output shakedown limit moments
( M i 1 ) to check for shakedown response of the output critical
integration points within the structure. The full elasticplastic
cyclic loading FE simulations employ the simple cyclic
moment loading pattern shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, full
elasticplastic cyclic moment loading FE analyses are also
performed but utilizing the moment increments ( M i ) just
exceeding the output elastic shakedown limit moments to
check for reversed plasticity and/or ratchetting responses of
the structure.

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the cylindrical vesselnozzle half

geometric model

D
500

The
general
purpose
nonlinear
FE
code
ABAQUS/Standard [44] is utilized in analyzing the cylindrical
vesselnozzle structure considered within the present research.
It is assumed that the cylindrical vesselnozzle structure
analyzed initially acquires uniform thicknesses throughout the
vessel, fillet, and nozzle geometries. The cylindrical vessel
nozzle half geometric model is meshed with 4noded reduced
integration shell elements (S4R). The S4R element has one
integration point located at its centroid and five section points
(integration points) through thickness [44]. Section point 1
(SP1) lies on the inner face of the element (where pressure is
applied), SP3 lies on the midplane of the element, and SP5
lies on the outer face of the element [44]. Since shell elements
are used to mesh the cylindrical vesselnozzle structure, the
rz , ryz , rzx , zi , yzi , and zxi stress terms will vanish

Moment

M(i-1)

0.25

0.5

0.75

Table 1: Cylindrical vesselnozzle geometric dimensions (mm)

d
l
t
L
T
r
1000
8
123
1000
4
6

Time (s)

Figure 1: Cyclic moment loading pattern employed within the full elastic
plastic cyclic loading FE simulations

from Eq. (2). Upon conducting several mesh convergence

Copyright 2011 by ASME

Table 2: Material properties of the cylindrical vesselnozzle structure

212.0
E ( GPa )

checks, it was found that modeling the cylindrical vessel

nozzle structure with 3240 shell elements provided adequate
results. Figure 3 illustrates the FE meshing of the cylindrical
vesselnozzle structure utilized for both elastic shakedown
limit and limit load analyses.

Y0 ( MPa )

302.0

0.29

b- Verification Study
Wu et. al. [8] designed and fabricated three full scale
cylindrical vesselnozzle experimental test models with
different ( d D ) ratios in order to determine their plastic limit
moments under inplane moment loading. The cylindrical
vessel and the nozzle were fabricated from two different
grades of low carbon steel [8]. The experimental test model
( L2 ) [8] is chosen for verifying the developed FE model
within the current research for further applying the simplified
technique to calculate the shakedown limit moments. Three
displacement sensors were installed at different locations
along the nozzle length in order to plot loaddisplacement
curves [8]. The ASME TwiceElasticSlope criterion [23]
was applied to determine the plastic limit moments. Figure 4
illustrates the momentdisplacement curves generated from
the FE model (developed within the current research)
employing shell elements at exact locations of the three
installed displacement sensors. In addition, Table 3 lists the
percentage errors between Wu et. al. [8] experimental limit
moment recordings and the FE limit moment outcomes
employing the ASME TwiceElasticSlope criterion [23].

Figure 3: The cylindrical vesselnozzle FE meshing

Displacement boundary conditions include restraining all

the nodes located on edges (A) shown in Fig. 2 against
translation in the xdirection and rotation about both the y
and z axes thereby imposing geometric symmetry about the
yzplane. Additionally, all the nodes located on edge (B) are
restrained in all translational degrees of freedom as physically
done with the cylindrical vessel during experimental testing
[8].
Load boundary conditions include applying the internal
pressure load on the inner faces of all the shell elements
meshing the cylindrical vesselnozzle structure. Capping or
closed end condition on both the vessel and the nozzle ends is
achieved through respectively applying distributed surface
edge load (force per unit length) on edges (C) and (D) with
properly calculated magnitudes regarding each edge. All the
nodes located on edge (D) of the nozzle follow the motion of a
reference node (E). This is achieved through invoking the
KINEMATIC
COUPLING
option
available
in
ABAQUS/Standard [44] which relates the degrees of freedom
of all the nodes located on edge (D) to the degrees of freedom
of the reference node (E) shown in Fig. 2. Inplane bending of
the nozzle is achieved through applying the moment load
about the xaxis on the reference node (E).
Mechanical properties of lowcarbon steel similar to
A10680 GrA [8] are input within the conducted FE analyses
to determine the elastic shakedown limit moments of the
cylindrical vesselnozzle structure. Table 2 lists the material
properties of the lowcarbon steel. It is assumed that the
assigned material is homogenous, isotropic, and follows an
elasticperfectlyplastic material model as mentioned within
the previous section.

13
12
11
Reaction moment (kN.m)

10
9
8
SENSOR-1

SENSOR-2

SENSOR-3

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120 130 140

Deflection (mm)

Figure 4: Momentdeflection curves of the nozzle

Table 3: Percentage errors between experimental and FE determined
limit moments at the three displacement sensors
Limit Moment (kN.m)
Percentage
Sensor #
Error (%)
Experimental
FE
Sensor1
10.81
10.21
5.55
Sensor2
10.53
10.33
1.89
Sensor3
10.46
10.48
-0.19
Average
10.6
10.34
2.45

Due to the witnessed encouraging outcomes of the limit

load verification study, it was decided to utilize the same
geometric dimensions of Wu et. al. [8] ( L2 ) test model to
determine the shakedown limit moments utilizing the

Copyright 2011 by ASME

simplified technique. However, the nozzle material properties

( E , Y0 , and ) are assigned to the entire cylindrical vessel
nozzle structure with an assumption of an elasticperfectly
plastic material model.

the TwiceElasticSlope criterion adopted in Section III

Division I of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [23].
Additionally, the normalized elastic limit moments forming
the elastic region are respectively imposed. For a given
internal pressure magnitude, the simplified technique outputs a
list of elements with their corresponding integration section
points at which their calculated equivalent residual stresses
( req ), utilizing Eq. (2), are either equal to or slightly less

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 5 shows the Bree (shakedown) diagram of the
analyzed cylindrical vesselnozzle structure. The shakedown
limit moments output by the simplified technique are
normalized by the fullyplastic moment ( M P ) of a straight
pipe, given by Eq. (3), having the same material and
dimensions of the nozzle since its ( M P ) magnitude is more
critical than the corresponding vessel magnitude. The internal
pressure magnitudes are given in percentage of the internal
pressure to initiate yielding ( PY ) of a straight pipe, given by
Eq. (4), having the same material and dimensions of the
cylindrical vessel since its ( PY ) magnitude is more critical
than the corresponding nozzle magnitude.
Every single point within Fig. 5, representing an elastic
shakedown limit moment, requires performing an elastic
plastic analysis and a corresponding application of the
simplified technique on the entire integration points within the
vesselnozzle FE mesh for a given steady internal pressure
magnitude. The calculated elastic shakedown limit moments
are utilized to generate or construct the elastic shakedown
boundary shown in Fig. 5.

than the material initial yield strength ( Y0 ). These integration

section points are the most critical points within the cylindrical
vesselnozzle structure since they control its shakedown
response. Exceeding the shakedown limit moment, these
critical points experience reversed plasticity (RP) and/or
ratchetting (R) responses (under cyclic moment loading)
depending on the magnitude of the applied steady internal
pressure.
The results of the 15% PY case are chosen to illustrate and
represent the cylindrical vesselnozzle structure behavior
upon crossing the shakedown limit boundary for the 0 till the
17.5%PY steady internal pressure spectrum since similar
behavior occurs but with different response magnitudes.
Similarly, the results of the 22% PY case are chosen to
represent the cylindrical vesselnozzle structure behavior
upon crossing the shakedown limit boundary for the 19% PY
till the 25.6%PY internal pressure spectrum since also similar
behavior occurs but with different response magnitudes.
Figure 6 illustrates the elastic shakedown response of the
15% PY case (full elasticplastic cyclic loading FE analysis) of
critical integration section point 1 (SP1), output by the
simplified technique, which lies on the inner surface within an
element located at the fillet midway between the vessel and
the nozzle intersection. More specifically, the output critical
element and its integration section point are located on the
acute angle side between the vessel and the nozzle as shown in
Fig. 7.

Figure 5: Normalized limit, shakedown, and elastic moments of the

cylindrical vesselnozzle intersection subjected to inplane bending
loading

M P Y0 Dm2 t

(3)

2Y0t
Dm

(4)

PY

Imposed on Fig. 5 the respective normalized limit

moments (maximum moment carrying capacity under
monotonic moment loading conditions) determined utilizing

Copyright 2011 by ASME

strain, until yielding is reached in compression. Further

loading of the nozzle increases the normalized equivalent
plastic strain until the elastic shakedown limit moment of the
15% PY case is fully applied in the first load cycle. During the
unloading phase of the first cycle, the normalized equivalent
stress, unlike loading, increases in magnitude heading towards
positive until it reaches a value of (+0.98) which is slightly
less than (+1) at unloading of the first cycle at 0.00365 PEEQ
as shown in Fig. 6. Subsequent loadings and unloadings are
characterized by a pure elastic response of the critical
integration section point and the entire structure where the
resulting normalized equivalent stresses decrease and increase
along the vertical line at the 0.00365 PEEQ value
corresponding to the maximum equivalent plastic strain
reached due to the applied elastic shakedown limit moment on
the nozzle.
Another representation for the elastic shakedown response
of the critical integration section point is illustrated through
Fig. 8. Figure 8 illustrates the loadingun-loading path of the
output critical integration section point of the 15% PY case
under full cyclic loading through plotting the normalized
maximum and minimum principal stresses of the critical point
inscribed within the normalized material yield surface. It is
important to mention that the hollow triangle legend within
Fig. 8 also represents further cyclic moment loadings and unloadings along its path denoting elastic shakedown response.

Figure 6: Elastic shakedown response of the output critical integration

section point (SP1) of the 15% PY case under cyclic inplane bending
moment loading on the nozzle utilizing the elastic shakedown limit
moment output by the simplified technique

Critical element at
fillet (acute angle)

Figure 7: Location of the critical element on the acute angle side between
the vessel and the nozzle of the 15% PY case (which is representative of
the 0 17.5% PY steady internal pressure spectrum)

The elastic shakedown response is illustrated by plotting

the normalized equivalent stress [(vonMises stress) / ( Y0 )]
versus the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) as shown in Fig. 6.
On the vertical axis of Fig. 6, the (+1) denotes yielding in
tension while the ( 1 ) denotes yielding in compression. In
order to differentiate between tensile and compressive states
of stress, negative values are assigned to the normalized
equivalent stress shown in Fig. 6 when the associated mean
stress is negative. More specifically, the sign of the mean
stress at every solution increment ( i ) within the full cyclic
loading FE analysis is checked. A negative mean stress
signifies compression of the critical integration point material;
hence, a negative sign is assigned to the corresponding
normalized equivalent stress.
As shown in Fig. 6, the normalized equivalent stress has
positive magnitudes at zero equivalent plastic strain
corresponding to analysis step1 where the steady internal
pressure is only applied. In analysis step2, where the elastic
shakedown limit moment, output by the simplified technique,
is inplane cyclically applied, the normalized equivalent stress
increases negatively in magnitude, at zero equivalent plastic

Figure 8: Loadingun-loading path inscribed within the material yield

surface of the output critical integration section point of the 15% P Y case
employing an elasticperfectlyplastic material model (cyclic inplane
bending moment loading)

The same output critical integration section point of the

15% PY case experienced RP response upon cyclically loading
the nozzle with the moment increment ( M i ) just exceeding
the output elastic shakedown limit moment, ( M i 1 ). Figure 9
shows RP response of the critical integration section point of
the 15% PY case upon cyclically loading the nozzle with the
moment increment ( M i ).

Copyright 2011 by ASME

Critical element at
fillet beginning
(obtuse angle)

Figure 11: Location of the critical element on the obtuse angle side
between the vessel and the nozzle of the 22% PY case (which is
representative of the 19 PY 25.6% PY steady internal pressure
spectrum)
Figure 9: Reversed plasticity response of the output critical integration
section point (SP1) of the 15% PY case under cyclic inplane bending
moment loading on the nozzle upon just exceeding the output elastic
shakedown limit moment

1.01
1
0.99
Normalized equivalent stress

Regarding the 19% PY till the 25.6%PY steady internal

pressure spectrum, it is observed that ratchetting response
occurs upon just exceeding the shakedown boundary
determined via the simplified technique, shown in Fig. 5. Full
elasticplastic cyclic loading FE analysis is conducted for the
22% PY case representing the aforementioned steady internal
pressure spectrum. Figure 10 illustrates the ratchetting
response experienced by the critical integration section point 5
(SP5), output by the simplified technique. section point 5
(SP5) lies on the outer surface within an element located on
the obtuse angle side between the vessel and the nozzle at the
fillet beginning from the vessel side as shown in Fig. 11. For
better illustration of the ratchetting response, Fig. 12 shows a
zoomed view of the narrow equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ)
spectrum, within which the output critical integration section
point SP5 of the 22% PY case experiences ratchetting,
illustrated by the [Ratchetting] legend shown in Fig. 10.

0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
Ratchetting

0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.9
0.89
0.88
6.50E-05

7.00E-05

7.50E-05

8.00E-05

Equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ)

Figure 12: Zoomed view of the narrow PEEQ spectrum shown in Fig. 10
illustrating ratchetting of the output critical integration section point SP5
of the 22% PY case (cyclic inplane bending moment loading)

It could be observed that the 18% PY case is not included

within the aforementioned steady internal pressure spectrums
(namely: the 0 17.5%PY and the 19% PY 25.6%PY
spectrums). The 18% PY case revealed interesting outcomes
where some of the detected critical integration section points
(output by the simplified technique) experienced RP response
while some critical points experienced ratchetting response
just upon exceeding the elastic shakedown boundary. Hence,
the 18% PY steady internal pressure represents a transition
case upon exceeding the elastic shakedown boundary for the
analyzed vesselnozzle geometry. It is worth noting that all
the critical integration section points which experienced RP
responses are SP1 located at the vesselnozzle fillet on the
acute angle side between the vessel and the nozzle. On the
other hand, all the critical integration section points which
experienced ratchetting responses are SP5 located at the
vesselnozzle fillet on the obtuse angle side between the
vessel and the nozzle. Table 4 lists the postshakedown
responses (RP and/or R) experienced by the vesselnozzle

Figure 10: Ratchetting response of the output critical integration section

point (SP5) of the 22% PY case under cyclic inplane bending moment
loading on the nozzle upon just exceeding the output elastic shakedown
limit moment

Copyright 2011 by ASME

structure upon exceeding the elastic shakedown boundary for

the steady internal pressure spectrum illustrated in Fig. 5.

only a single point on the shakedown boundary. Furthermore,

thorough and mature comprehension of the loading nature and
prior knowledge of the possible critical regions within the
structure controlling its shakedown response are essential. On
the contrary, the simplified technique does not require
extensive prior knowledge of the expected critical regions
controlling the structure shakedown response since it
automatically checks all integration points within the elements
meshing the entire structure.

Table 4: Postelastic shakedown responses experienced upon exceeding

the shakedown boundary of Fig. 5
Internal
Critical
Angle Side of
PostElastic
Pressure
Integration
Critical Points on
Shakedown
Spectrum
Section Points
Vesselnozzle
Response
( % PY )
(SP)
Fillet
RP
1
Acute
0.0
RP
1
Acute
5.0
RP
1
Acute
10.0
RP
1
Acute
15.0
RP
1
Acute
17.0
RP
1
Acute
17.5
RP & R
1&5
Acute & Obtuse
18.0
R
5
Obtuse
19.0
R
5
Obtuse
20.0
R
5
Obtuse
22.0
R
5
Obtuse
23.0
R
5
Obtuse
24.0
R
5
Obtuse
25.6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The American University in Cairo is greatly
acknowledged for utilizing its advanced computational
facilities.
REFERENCES
[1] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, and M. M. Younan, M. Y. A.,
2006, Determination of Shakedown Limit Load for a 90
Degree Pipe Bend Using a Simplified Technique,
ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 128, pp.
618-624.
[2] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, and M. M. Younan, M. Y. A.,
2007, A Simplified Technique for Shakedown Limit
Load Determination, Nuclear Engineering and Design,
237, pp. 1231-1240.
[3] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, and M. M. Younan, M. Y. A.,
Comparison of Pipe Bend Ratchetting/Shakedown Test
Results with the Shakedown Boundary Determined via a
Simplified Technique, ASME transactions, PVP
division conference, Prague, Czech Republic, July 2009.
[4] Melan, E., 1936, Theorie Statisch Unbestimmter
Systeme Aus Ideal Plastischean Baustoff, Sitzber.
Akad. Wiss. Wien II a, 145, pp. 195-218.
[5] Leckie, F. A. and Penny, R. K., 1967, Shakedown
Pressure for Radial Nozzles in Spherical Pressure
Vessels, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
3, pp. 743-755.
[6] Mohamed, A. I., Megahed, M. M., Bayoumi, L. S. and
Younan, M. Y. A., 1999, Applications of Iterative
Elastic Techniques for Elastic-Plastic Analysis of
Pressure Vessels, Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, 121, pp. 1-6.
[7] Muscat, M. and Mackenzie, D., 2003, ElasticShakedown Analysis of Axisymmetric Nozzles, Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology, 125, pp. 365-370.
[8] Wu, B. H., Sang, Z. F., and Widera, G. E. O., 2010,
"Plastic Analysis of Cylindrical Vessels under In Plane
Moment on the Nozzle," Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, 132, pp. 061203-1 - 061203-8.
[9] Melan, E., 1938, Der Spannungszustand eines MisesHenckyschen
Kontinuums
bei
veraenderlicher
Belastung, Sitzber. Akad. Wiss., 147, pp. 73-78.
[10] Melan, E., 1938, Zur Plastizitaet des reumlichen
Kontinuums, Ing. Arch., 8, pp. 116-126.
[11] Bree, J., 1967, Elastic-Plastic Behaviour of Thin Tubes
Subjected to Internal Pressure and Intermittent High Heat

CONCLUSION
The developed cylindrical vesselnozzle FE verification
model showed excellent correlation with the limit load
experimental test recordings of Wu et. al. [8]. The verification
study outcomes increased the confidence in the developed FE
model which encouraged utilizing the developed FE model to
generate the shakedown limit boundary of the cylindrical
vesselnozzle structure through applying the simplified
technique.
Postelastic shakedown responses (reversed plasticity
and/or ratchetting) were accurately predicted by the simplified
technique without performing lengthy full elasticplastic
cyclic loading FE analyses. However, full elasticplastic
cyclic loading FE analyses were performed to gain deeper
confidence within the simplified technique outcomes.
Elastic shakedown response is noticed upon cyclically
loading the cylindrical vesselnozzle structure with the elastic
shakedown limit loads determined by the simplified technique.
In addition, reversed plasticity and/or ratchetting responses are
observed upon cyclically loading the cylindrical vesselnozzle
structure with moment magnitudes just exceeding the elastic
shakedown limit moments determined by the simplified
technique depending on applied steady internal pressure
magnitude. The simplified technique succeeded in tracing the
18% PY critical transition case where reversed plasticity and
ratchetting responses concurrently occurred within the
structure.
The computational time required by the simplified
technique to generate the entire shakedown boundary of the
cylindrical vesselnozzle structure is utterly insignificant
compared to performing full elasticplastic cyclic loading FE
analyses. The full elasticplastic cyclic loading FE analyses
require an initial guess (moment magnitude) followed by an
iterative series of guesses (several cyclic loading iterations)
until the elastic shakedown limit load is determined forming

10

Copyright 2011 by ASME

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26] Preiss, R., 1999, On the Shakedown Analysis of

Nozzles Using Elasto-Plastic FEA, International Journal
of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 76, pp. 421-434.
[27] Hamilton, R. H., Mackenzie, D., Shi, J., and Boyle, J. T.,
1996, Simplified Lower Bound Limit Analysis of
Pressurized Cylinder/Cylinder Intersections Using
Generalized Yield Criteria, International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, 67, pp. 219-226.
[28] Megahed, M. M., 1981, Influence of Hardening Rule on
the Elasto-Plastic Behaviour of a Simple Structure under
Cyclic Loading, International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences, 23, pp. 169-182.
[29] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, and M. M. Younan, M. Y. A.,
2011, A simplified technique for shakedown limit load
determination of a large square plate with a small central
hole under cyclic biaxial loading, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, 241, pp. 657-665.
[30] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, M. M., and Younan, M. Y.,
2007, Shakedown Limits of a 90-Degree Pipe Bend
using Small and Large Displacement Formulations,
ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 129, pp.
287 - 295.
[31] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, M. M., and Younan, M. Y.,
2011, Shakedown Limit Loads for 90-Degree
Scheduled Pipe Bends Subjected to Steady Internal
Pressure and Cyclic Bending Moments, ASME Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology, 133, 031207.
[32] Vlaicu, D., 2009, Shakedown Analysis of Axisymmetric
Nozzles under Primary and Secondary Cyclic Loads,
ASME transactions, PVP division conference, Prague,
July 2009.
[33] Sang, Z.F, Wang, Z.L., Xue, L.P., Widera, G.E.O., 2005,
Plastic Limit Loads of Nozzles in Cylindrical vessels
under out-of-plane Moment Loading, International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 82, pp. 638-648.
[34] Li, N., Sang, Z. F., and Widera, G.E.O., 2008, Study of
plastic Limit Load on Pressurized Cylinders with Lateral
Nozzle, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 130,
pp. 041210-1 - 041210-7.
[35] Fang, J., Li, N., Sang, Z. F., Widera, G. E. O., 2009,
Study of Elastic Strength for Cylinders With Hillside
Nozzle, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 131,
pp. 051202-1 - 051202-8.
[36] Wang, H. F., Sang, Z. F., Xue, L. P., Widera G. E. O.,
2009, "Burst Pressure of Pressurized Cylinders With
Hillside Nozzle," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
131, pp. 041204-1 -041204-6.
[37] Rodabaugh, E. C., 1988, A Review of Area
Replacement Rules for Pipe Connections in Pressure
Vessels and Piping, Welding Research Council
Bulletin, No. 335.
[38] Xue, L., Widera, G. E. O., and Sang, Z., 2010,
Parametric FEA Study of Burst Pressure of Cylindrical
Shell Intersections, Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, 132, pp. 031203-1 - 031203-7.

Fluxes with Application to Fast Nuclear Reactor Fuel

Elements, Journal of Strain Analysis, 2, pp. 226-238.
Parkes, E.W., 1964, Structural Effects of Repeated
Thermal Loading, Thermal Stress (Edited by Benham et
al.), Pitman, London.
Mackenzie, D. and Boyle, J. T., 1993, A Simple
Method for Estimating Shakedown Load for Complex
Structures, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 265,
pp. 89-94.
Marriott, D. L., 1988, Evaluation of Deformation or
Load Control of Stress under Inelastic Conditions Using
Finite Elements Stress Analysis, ASME transactions,
PVP division conference, 136, pp. 3-9.
Dhalla, A. K., 1987, A Simplified Procedure to Classify
Stresses for Elevated Temperature Service, ASME
transactions, PVP division conference, 120, pp. 177-188.
Seshadri, R., 1991, The Generalized Local Stress Strain
(GLOSS) Analysis-Theory and Applications, ASME
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 113, pp. 219227.
Ponter, A., and Boulbibane, M., 2002, Minimum
Theorems and the Linear Matching Method for Bodies in
a Cyclic State of Creep, European Journal of
Mechanics, A/Solids, 21, pp. 915-925.
Nadarajah, C., Mackenzie, D., and Boyle, J.T., 1996,
'Limit and Shakedown Analysis of Nozzle/Cylinder
Intersections under Internal Pressure and in-plane
Moment Loading," International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping, 86, pp. 261-272.
Robinson, M., 1978, Lower Bound Limit Pressure for
the Cylinder-Cylinder Intersection A parametric
Survey, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 100,
pp. 65-73.
Macfarlane, W.A., Findlay, G. E., 1978, A Simple
Technique for Calculating Shakedown Loads in Pressure
Vessels, Proceedings of I Mech E, 186, pp. 4-72.
Hamilton, R., Boyle, J. T., Shi, J. and Mackenzie, D.,
1996, Shakedown Load Bounds by Elastic Finite
Element Analysis, ASME transactions, PVP division
conference, 343, pp. 421-434.
Yang, P., Liu, Y., Ohtake, Y., Yuan, H., Cen, Z., 2005,
Limit Analysis Based on a Modified Elastic
Compensation Method for Nozzle to Cylinder
Junctions, Pressure Vessels and Piping, 82, pp. 770776.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2004 edition,
Section VIII Division 2, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Polizzotto, C., 1993, On the Conditions to Prevent
Plastic Shakedown of Structures: Part I - Theory,
ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 60, pp. 15-19.
Muscat, M., and Hamilton, R., 2002, Elastic
Shakedown in pressure vessel components under non
proportional loading PVP, 447, pp. 95-102.

11

Copyright 2011 by ASME

[39] Liu, P.F., Zheng, J.Y., M. A, L., Miao, C.J., and

WU, L. L., 2008, Calculations of Plastic Collapse Load
of Pressure Vessel Using FEA, Journal of Zhejiang
University SCIENCE A, 9, pp. 900-906.
[40] Turner, L.B., 1910, The stresses in a thick hollow
cylinder subjected to internal pressure, Trans. Camb.
Philos. Soc., 21: 377-396.
[41] Faupel, J.H., 1956, Yielding and bursting characteristics
of heavy walled cylinders, ASME Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 78, pp. 1031-1064.
[42] Christopher, T., Rama Sarma, B.S.V., Govindan Potti,
P.K., Nageswara Rao, B., Sankarnarayanasamy, K.,
2002, A Comparative study on failure pressure
estimations
of
unflawed
cylindrical
vessels,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 79,
pp. 53-66.
[43] Gao, P., Li, N., Sang, Z. F., and Widera, G. E. O., 2009,
Elastic Behavior of Cylindrical Vessels With Lateral
Nozzle Under Internal Pressure, Journal of Pressure
Vessel Technology, 131, pp. 051207-1 - 051207-6.
[44] SIMULIA
Dassault
Systmes,
2009,
ABAQUS/Standard,
Version
6.9-1,
User
Documentation Manuals.

12

Copyright 2011 by ASME