Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2017
July 16-20, 2017, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA

PVP2017-65337

SHAKEDOWN LIMITS FOR HILLSIDE NOZZLES IN CYLINDRICAL VESSELS

Ahmed K. Bakry Chahinaz A. Saleh Mohammad M. Megahed

PV-Engineer at Enppi
MS student-
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University, Orman, Giza, Egypt,
Postal Code 12613
Phone: +2001003081896
ahmed.bakry@enppi.com
Associate Professor of Solid
Mechanics
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University, Orman, Giza,
Egypt, Postal Code 12613
Phone, Fax: +202-35703620
chahinaz@eng.cu.edu.eg
Professor of Solid Mechanics
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University, Orman, Giza, Egypt,
Postal Code 12613
Phone, Fax: +202-35703620
mmegahed@eng.cu.edu.eg

𝑀𝑀𝑃𝑃 plastic moment of a straight pipe similar to the

ABSTRACT nozzle
P Internal Pressure
This research paper is concerned with the mechanical 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 load at step i
behavior of the cylindrical vessels with hillside nozzles when 𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 reference load
subjected to both pressure and nozzle bending loads in cyclic 𝑃𝑃𝑌𝑌 yield pressure of the cylinder
forms. The influence of hillside angle on shakedown (SD) r fillet radius
limits of the connection under cyclic pressure and combined SY yield strength
steady pressure with cyclic nozzle bending is investigated. A 𝑆𝑆0 maximum stress in a radial nozzle
shell FEA model is built for the assembly using five different 𝑆𝑆𝛽𝛽 maximum stress in a hillside nozzle of angle β
hillside angles ranging from 0° to 40°. Shakedown limits are T thickness of cylinder
determined by a direct technique known as the Nonlinear t thickness of nozzle
Superposition Method (NSM). Bree diagrams for cyclic out of 𝛽𝛽 hillside angle
plane opening (OPO) / in plane (IP) nozzle moments combined ν Poisson's ratio
with steady internal pressure are determined. The results show 𝜎𝜎𝐸𝐸 elastic stress due to reference load
an increase in both OPO and IP shakedown moments as the 𝜎𝜎𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 elastic plastic stress
hillside angle is increased. In addition, the OPO shakedown 𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 elastic stress at load step i
limit moments for all hillside angles was found to be insensitive 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑒𝑒 elastic stress components
to the level of internal pressure in contrary to IP shakedown
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑟𝑟 residual stress components
moment which starts to reduce with pressure for the high
pressure range. 𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 residual stress at load step i

NOMENCLATURE INTRODUCTION

D mean diameter of the cylinder Nozzles in cylindrical shells may be radial, oblique or
Di inner diameter of the cylinder hillside depending on their functions, accessibility or routing of
d mean diameter of the nozzle the connected piping. A hillside nozzle in cylindrical shells is
do outer diameter of the nozzle generally used as an inlet connection aiming to achieve better
E modulus of elasticity fluid distribution inside the vessel such as in distillation towers.
L cylinder length A hillside nozzle is also adopted when it is required to decrease
l nozzle length inlet fluid velocity by defining a tangential circular path inside
M nozzle moment the vessel.

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Study of localized stresses induced at the vicinity of
nozzle-vessel intersections has long attracted the attention of
both designers and scholars. In this regard, WRC 107 [1] and
WRC 297 [2] are two of the most cited bulletins of the Welding
Research Council for evaluation of localized stresses at nozzle-
vessel joints. WRC 107 [1] is used for nozzles attached to both
cylindrical and spherical vessels, while WRC 297 [2] is
confined only to cylinder to cylinder intersections. In WRC
297, stresses in shell and nozzle are determined for wide range
of diameters ratios.
For intersections of hillside nozzles with cylindrical
vessels, the ASME code [3] provided a formula for estimation
of the ratio between 𝑆𝑆𝛽𝛽 (maximum stress in a hillside nozzle
with angle β) and 𝑆𝑆0 (maximum stress in a radial nozzle, β=0)
due to internal pressure as: 𝑆𝑆𝛽𝛽 / 𝑆𝑆0 = 1 + 2(sin 𝛽𝛽)2 .which
implies that the maximum stress increases with the hillside
angle β. On the basis of test results, Mehrson [4] proposed that
𝑆𝑆𝛽𝛽 / 𝑆𝑆0 = cos 𝛽𝛽 0.5 which implies a slight reduction in the
maximum stress as the hillside angle β increases. Thus, the
predictions of ASME approach are in contradiction with
experimental test results for maximum stress at hillside nozzles.
Wang et al [5] presented experimental and numerical
investigations of elastic stresses induced by internal pressure at
the vicinity of hillside nozzle intersections with cylindrical
shells. The results show that the stress concentration factor
decreases with the increase of hillside nozzle angle, thus
confirming Mehrson conclusions. Further, Hazlett [6],
Skopinsky [7], Rodabaugh [8] also confirmed Mehrson result.
This indicated that the ASME code [3] is grossly over
conservative.
Elastic stresses at hillside nozzle intersection with
cylindrical vessels due to out-of-plane (OP) nozzle bending
moment has been investigated by Fang et al [9]. The results
indicated that the maximum stresses are located at the acute
corner in the transverse section of the intersection. The results
also showed that the maximum elastic stress and stress ratio
decrease with the increase of hillside nozzle angle β.
Nozzle connections with pressure vessels are subjected to
various combinations of steady and cyclic external nozzle
piping loads and internal fluid pressure. Such combinations can
be excessive enough to cause fracture to the nozzle-cylinder
connection if not properly designed. Under such circumstances,
as mentioned above, the acting loads on the nozzle-cylinder
junction may be of cyclic nature. In such case, the pressure
vessel engineer is required to ensure that modes of failure
associated with cyclic loading such as ratcheting or low cycle
fatigue will not cause failure of the nozzle-vessel intersection.
Beyond elastic limit, a structure under cyclic loading may
experience a state of “Elastic Shakedown” in which its steady
2 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
state behavior is fully elastic after development of limited
initial plastic strains during the first few load cycles. Such a
steady state response is desirable and ensures that no potential
danger of failure exists.
Determination of shakedown limits for structures involves
investigation of the cyclic inelastic response of the structure to
cyclic loading. The first obvious approach to this end is to
conduct a full cyclic inelastic FE analysis which involves the
application of load cycles in steps and monitoring the plastic
strain. If the resulting plastic strain fields show that cyclic
accumulation ceases after a few cycles and/or non-existence of
reversed cyclic state of plastic strains, then it is concluded that
elastic shakedown is achieved. However, such extensive
computations may be in many cases expensive and impractical
for realistic structures.
For simple structures, it is possible to conduct such full
cyclic analysis analytically as illustrated by Bree [10] in his
treatment of the behavior of a pressurized thin-walled tube
under cyclic thermal gradient across the wall. Bree results for
the various modes of cyclic elastic plastic behavior
(shakedown, ratcheting and reversed plasticity) are illustrated
in an interaction diagram known as the ”Bree Diagram”.
Megahed [11] conducted analytical investigations to illustrate
the effect of hardening rules on the modes of cyclic inelastic
behavior of a two-bar structure under sustained mechanical
load and cyclic thermal gradient on a Bree like diagram
During the last two decades, a number of the so-called
“Direct Methods’ have been developed to determine shakedown
loads without resort to conducting full cycle-by cycle inelastic
analysis . In addition to their simplicity, direct methods are less
demanding on computer time and storage and therefore are
more economical than full cycle by cycle inelastic analysis.
The Elastic Compensation Method (ECM) is one of the
earliest direct methods that was developed for determination of
lower bound limit and shakedown loads; see Mackenzie and
Boyle [12–14]. The ECM procedure adopts an iterative
procedure involving sequences of linear elastic FE-based
analyses in which the highly stressed regions of the structure
are systematically weakened by reduction of its local modulus
of elasticity. The weakening mechanism via elastic modulus
adjustment is iteratively repeated until convergence is achieved
and a constant residual stress is determined for use in Melan’s
theorem of shakedown [15].
The linear matching method (LMM) proposed by Ponter et
al. [16,17] provided significant enhancement in the field of
direct methods. In the LMM, a series of iterative elastic
solutions are conducted, with the elastic modulus being
modified within the volume, in order to bring stresses down to
the level of material yield strength. Repetition of the iterations
allows stresses to redistribute within the structure in a way
similar to the response of nonlinear materials, and hence the
 load converges to the upper bound shakedown load [18].
Applications of LMM have been extended to assessment of
other modes of potential failure such as ratcheting, creep and
fatigue.
The Non-linear Superposition Method (NSM), which was
originally proposed by Muscat and Mackenzie [19] and later
developed and widely applied by Abdallah et al [20] , Oh et al
[21], and Vermaak et al [22]. The method is based on Melan
shakedown theorem [15]. As applied by Abdallah et al [20], the
NSM involves performing two FE analyses, an elastic analysis
under the cyclic load and an elastic-plastic analysis under both
steady and cyclic loads. Based on these two analyses, the
residual stress field is identified to satisfy Melan shakedown
theorem [15]. Abdallah et al [23,24] validated the accuracy of
NSM predictions. Abdallah et al [25,26] validated the accuracy
of NSM predictions through comparison of shakedown
domains with known analytical solutions for a number of
benchmark problems.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, there is lack of
publication on shakedown behavior of hillside nozzle
intersections with cylindrical vessels. Therefore, the scope of
this paper has been designed to fill-in this gap by providing
estimates of shakedown limits for a hillside nozzle - cylindrical
shell intersections when subjected to either cyclic internal
pressure only or a combination of steady internal pressure and
cyclic nozzle moments. The influence of hillside angle on the
resulting shakedown pressure and shakedown limit moments
will be investigated. The NSM procedure is utilized, and the
following loading cases are considered: cyclic pressure with no
accompanying nozzle moment, cyclic out-of-plane opening
(OPO) combined with steady pressure, and cyclic in-plane (IP)
combined with steady pressure. The objective of the study is
two folds: to provide estimates for shakedown limit loads and
to assess the effect of the hillside angle β on shakedown
domains.
DESCRIPTION OF NSM PROCEDURE
The NSM procedure is FE-based technique, employing
small displacement formulation and elastic-perfectly plastic
material model with zero initial residual stresses. A brief
description for the method is included here, for detailed
description of the method many references such as [20].
The NSM procedure is built on the basis of Melan’s
shakedown theorem [15] which implies that for the given load
set, if the sum of elastic and residual stress fields (𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑒𝑒 and 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑟𝑟 )
satisfy von-Mises yield criterion. f (𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑒𝑒 + 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑟𝑟 ) ≤ SY . Then the
given load is a lower bound shakedown load. The residual
stresses can be calculated using the following equation where
the suffix ELPL points to elastic plastic:
3 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 𝜎𝜎𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 − 𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (1)
The residual stresses at each load step are calculated based
on superposition of both of the nonlinear Elastic Plastic stress
field and the elastic stress field. Accordingly, the NSM
procedure involves conducting two types of analyses; an elastic
and an elastic-plastic analyses. Figure 1 illustrates the two types
of FE analyses. The elastic analysis (Fig. 1a) aims to calculate
the elastic stress field 𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 required in Eq. (1). Since elastic
stress fields are linearly proportional to load level, the second
term in RHS of Eq. (1) can be replaced by 𝜎𝜎𝐸𝐸 (𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 /𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ). Where
Pi is the load at the current load step and Pref the load used in
the elastic analysis. The elastic analysis can then be performed
only once using any cyclic load magnitude.
(a) Elastic Analysis (b) Elastic-Plastic Analysis
Fig. 1 Elastic and Elastic-Plastic Analysis in the NSM
The purpose of the elastic-plastic analysis is to estimate the
elastic plastic stress field 𝜎𝜎𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 corresponding to each load step
required in the Eq. (1). The elastic plastic analysis is completed
in two steps where both the cyclic and static loads are applied;
see Fig. 1b. The first step involves application of the steady
load where induced stresses are in the elastic range. The cyclic
load is then applied incrementally until its full magnitude is
reached; see Fig. 1b. knowing all the terms of the RHS of Eq.
(1), the residual stress components can be calculated using the
same equation. The equivalent residual stress can then be
calculated from the corresponding components using von-
Mises yield criterion.
A check is performed to know whether the material yield
strength has been exceeded by the residual stress at any
integration point of an element. Whenever this condition is
satisfied, the loading corresponding to the previous load step
will be the shakedown limit load. Such procedure and check
can be automated using the FE platforms tools as performed by
Muscat et al [19] and Abdallah et al [20] on ANSYS and
ABAQUS respectively. A semi-automatic approach has been
adopted in the current research utilizing “Solution
Combination” tool in ANSYS-WB for minimizing the post
processing time.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HILLSIDE NOZZLE- Figure 3 shows some features of the FE model adopted
VESSEL FE MODEL here. Similar to the approach adopted by Abdallah [25,26], the
fillet weld joining the nozzle and vessel was replaced by a fillet
The FE model for hillside nozzle-cylindrical vessel with a radius of 6 mm in order to avoid stress singularity at the
intersection was built on ANSYS-WB platform [27]. A 4-node weld toe. The boundary conditions along the vessel length
shell element (shell-181 element) with 6 degrees of freedom per include fixation of one end, while allowing the other end to
node was utilized. The current investigation employed nozzle- translate freely in the axial direction. Since the vessel length is
vessel geometry, dimensions and materials similar to those used large enough (800 mm) compared to nozzle diameter (133
by Wang et al [28] in their investigation of burst pressures of mm), it is not expected that the vessel end boundary conditions
such connection. Table 1 and Fig. 2 show the dimension of the would influence stresses or deformations at the junctions.
Wang et al nozzle-vessel intersection model, with D, L, T Elastic stress analysis shows that discontinuity stresses arising
indicating the diameter, length, wall thickness of the vessel, d, l, at the nozzle junction decays after a longitudinal distance of
t denoting the same for the nozzle, and β denoting hillside around 55 mm. Internal pressure was applied to all internal
angle. The characteristic geometry indicators are thus: d/D = surfaces of both nozzle and vessel. The longitudinal effect of
0.32, t/T = 0.8, D/T= 75.1. pressure was simulated by acting upon the circular end closures
of nozzle and vessel by longitudinal stresses of magnitudes
Table 1 Dimensions ( in mm) of the nozzle-vessel Pd/4t and PD/4T respectively. Bending moments were applied
Intersection [28] to the nozzle end by means of a master node connected to the
nozzle circular closure. The FE model mesh adopted 12
Di L T do l t elements at the intersection fillet with element size around 4
mm. The maximum element size away from the intersection
400 800 5.4 133 300 4.3 was about 35 mm. The FE model employed about 15700 shell
elements and 15900 nodes.

t
do
T

θ=0°
l

θ=90°
θ θ=180°
Di

Fig. 2 Master model dimensions used in current research

similar to Wang et al [28]

Shakedown investigation employ elastic perfectly plastic

material model. For this purpose, the material data provided by
Wang et al. [28] were adopted as follows: yield strength Sy =
332 MPa for both vessel and nozzle materials, Young’s
modulus E = 202 GPa for the cylindrical vessel and 212 GPa
for the nozzle, Poisson’s ratio ν =0.3 for both materials

The current investigations are conducted for the following

range of hillside angles: β = 0° (radial), 10°, 20°, 30°, 40°, Note
that β =40° is almost the largest hillside angle that can be
achieved for this nozzle/vessel diameter ratio d/D = 0.32. Since
the investigation of shakedown limits requires generation a
large number of FE models to cater for the adopted ranges of
pressure, moments and hillside angles, it was necessary to
Fig. 3 FE model of Wang et al [28] intersection of hillside
utilize built-in parametric tools of ANSYS-WB. In addition,
nozzle with cylinderical vessel adopted in the present work
parameterization enables swifter shift to nozzle-vessel
intersection with different geometries.

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 VALIDATION OF FE MODEL
Figure 4 indicates that the current predictions for the case
In order to validate the accuracy of the FE model and NSM of IP moment compare favorably with [25] with deviation of
procedure, the predictions published by Abdallah [25,26] for around 3 % in the low pressure range and a deviation of about 8
shakedown behavior of radial nozzle in cylindrical vessel under % for the high pressure range. The results presented in Fig. 5
combined sustained pressure and cyclic IP and OP moments are for the OP moment exhibit better correlation with Abdallah’s
utilized. This special case of radial nozzle was adopted for results [26] with a deviation less than 2 %. The correlation
validation as no published literature could be found for depicted in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 indicates that the methodology and
shakedown behavior of hillside nozzle with β ≠ 0. In Abdallah’s modelling adopted is valid for use with nozzle intersections
work [25,26]the geometries and material properties adopted having hillside angle ≥ 0.
were similar to that of Wu et al [29] for the case of cyclic IP
nozzle moment, and similar to that adopted by Sang et al. [30] Abdallah's Elastic Limit Moment [26] Abdallah's SD Limit [26]
for cyclic OP nozzle moment. Where D=508 mm, d=125 mm, T Current Research Elastic Moment Current Research SD Moment
=8 mm, t=4 mm, i.e. d/D = 0.25, t/T = 0.5, and D/T= 63.5. The 0.2
yield strength of 302 MPa was used for both of the nozzle and
cylinder. The corresponding Bree diagram was generated using 0.18

Normalized Out of Plane Bending Moment

the NSM procedure. For the current validation, FE models 0.16
similar to that illustrated in Fig. 3 above were constructed by
0.14
means of the parametric feature on ANSYS-WB to match the

[M / Mp (Nozzle)]
geometries adopted in Abdallah’s work. The comparisons 0.12
between Bree diagrams generated here with Abdallah’s
0.1
predictions for the validation cases are illustrated in Fig. 4 and
Fig. 5 for IP and OP moment cases respectively. In such 0.08
diagrams, the abscissa represents a normalized measure of 0.06
sustained load (P/PY), while the ordinate represents a
normalized measure of cyclic load (M/MP), where 𝑃𝑃𝑌𝑌 = 0.04

2 𝑆𝑆𝑦𝑦 𝑇𝑇 /𝐷𝐷 is the internal pressure to initiate yielding in the 0.02

cylindrical vessel and 𝑀𝑀𝑃𝑃 = 𝑆𝑆𝑦𝑦 𝑑𝑑 2 𝑡𝑡 is the fully plastic moment 0
of a straight pipe similar to the nozzle. Accordingly, the values 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
of 𝑃𝑃𝑌𝑌 and MP for the nozzle-vessel intersections geometry are: Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]
𝑃𝑃𝑌𝑌 = 9.5 MPa, 𝑀𝑀𝑃𝑃 = 18.9 KN.m.
Fig. 5 Comparison of the predicted Elastic and Shakedown
limit moments for combined sustained P and cyclic OP
Abdallah's Elastic Limit Moment [25] Abdallah's SD Limit [25] nozzle moment with Abdallah prediction [26]: d/D = 0.25,
t/T = 0.5 and D/T= 63.5
Current Research Elastic Moment Current Research SD Moment

0.35
ELASTIC SHAKEDOWN RESULTS FOR HILLSIDE
0.3
NOZZLE –CYLINDRECAL VESSEL INTERSECTIONS
Normalized Bending Moment

0.25
The shakedown study for hillside nozzle in a cylindrical
[M / Mp (Nozzle)]

0.2 vessel arrangement subjected to the following load cases are

performed:
0.15
Case 1: Cyclic Pressure
0.1 Case 2: Steady Pressure + cyclic out-of-plane moment (OPO)
Case 3: Steady Pressure + cyclic In-plane moment (IP)
0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Results for Case 1: Cyclic Pressure
Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]
Figure 6 shows the variation of elastic and shakedown
limits with hillside angle β from 0° to 40° for the case of cyclic
Fig. 4 Comparison of the predicted Elastic and Shakedown
pressure. Note that the elastic limit is the maximum load
limit moments for combined sustained P and cyclic IP
beyond which the equivalent stress exceeds the yield strength
nozzle moment with Abdallah prediction [25]: d/D = 0.25,
of the material. The value of 𝑃𝑃𝑌𝑌 for the hillside nozzle-vessel
t/T = 0.5 and D/T= 63.5
intersections shown in Fig. 2 is 8.8 MPa. The results indicate

5 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 that the pressure shakedown limit for β = 0°, is about 0.5 𝑃𝑃𝑌𝑌 . In
addition, both elastic and shakedown (SD) pressure limits
increase by about 12 % as the angle β is increased from 0° to
40°. Shakedown pressure approaches about 0.6 PY at β = 40°
For all values of β, the critical location around the
intersection at which shakedown condition is first reached
coincides with location where angle θ = 90° as illustrated in
Fig. 7 for β = 40° as an example. See Fig. 2 for definition of
angle θ.
= 8.8 MPa, 𝑀𝑀𝑃𝑃 = 23.6 kN.m. For all values of β, the elastic
limit is a decreasing function of pressure while the shakedown
limit moment is constant overall the entire pressure range.
Increased values of β cause corresponding increase in both the
elastic and shakedown limit moments. As β increases from 0o to
40o, the elastic limit at zero pressures increases by about 42 %
while the shakedown moment increases by about 47 %. Figure
10 illustrates the effect of increasing the hillside angle on the
pressure independent OPO shakedown limit.

70 0.1

60 0.09
Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]

0.08
50
0.07

Normalized Moment
[M / Mp (Nozzle)]
40
0.06
30 0.05

20 0.04

Elastic Limit (Ratio) 0.03 β = 0°

10
β = 10°
SD Limit (Ratio) 0.02 β = 20°
0 β = 30°
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.01
β = 40°
Hillside Angle β (deg) 0
Fig. 6 Elastic and shakedown pressures for hillside nozzle 0 10 20 30 40
intersections with cylindrical vessels under condition of Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]
cyclic pressure only for various values of hillside angle (β) Fig. 8 Comparison of elastic limit boundaries for different
hillside angle (d/D = 0.32, t/T = 0.8 and D/T= 75.1)

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14
Normalized Moment
[M / Mp (Nozzle)]

0.12

0.1

0.08
Fig. 7 Residual stress distribution showing the location of β = 0°
0.06
SD critical element for β = 40° model under cyclic internal β = 10°
pressure 0.04 β = 20°
β = 30°
0.02
β = 40°
0
Results for Case 2: Sustained Pressure + Cyclic OPO 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Moment Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]

Figure 8 and Fig. 9 compare the elastic limits and Fig. 9 Comparison of OPO shakedown load boundaries for
shakedown OPO limit moment in the Bree diagram at different different hillside angle (β) (d/D = 0.32, t/T = 0.8 and D/T=
hillside angles ranging from 0o to 40o. Values of 𝑃𝑃𝑌𝑌 and 𝑀𝑀𝑃𝑃 for 75.1)
the hillside nozzle-vessel intersections shown in Fig. 2 are: 𝑃𝑃𝑌𝑌

6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 increase in both the elastic and shakedown limit moments. At
0.2 the high pressure range, increased hillside angle has a stronger
0.18 stiffening effect, which in turn enlarges the SD domain.

0.16
0.18

Normalized In-Plane Bending MOment

0.14
Normalized Moment

0.16
[M / Mp (Nozzle)]

0.12
0.14

[M / Mp (Nozzle)]
0.1
0.12
0.08
0.1
0.06
OPO Shakedown Moment 0.08
0.04
Elastic Limit
0.02 0.06
β = 0°

0 0.04 β = 10°
0 20 40 60 β = 20°
0.02
Hillside Angle β (deg) β = 30°
0
Fig. 10 Effect of hillside angle on the pressure-independent 0 10 20 30
OPO shakedown limit Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]

The critical location around the intersection at which Fig. 12 Comparison of elastic limit boundaries for different
shakedown condition is first reached coincides with location hillside angle (β) for IP moment loading
where angle θ = 0° at most of the internal pressure domain as
illustrated in Fig. 11 for β = 10° as an example. See Fig. 2 for
definition of angle θ.
0.35
Normalized In-Plane Bending MOment

0.3
[M / Mp (Nozzle)]

0.25

0.2

0.15
β = 0°
0.1 β =10°
Fig. 11 Location for SD critical element for β = 10° model β = 20°
and cylcic moment 0.05 β = 30°

0
RESULTS FOR CASE 3: SUSTAINED PRESSURE + 0 10 20 30
CYCLIC IP MOMENT Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]

Figure 12 and Fig. 13 compare the elastic limits and
shakedown IP limit moment in the Bree diagram at different
hillside angles ranging from 0° to 30°. For all values of β, the
elastic limit is a decreasing function of pressure while the
shakedown limit moment is pressure-independent up to about
P/PY = 0.1; i.e. in the low pressure range. For higher pressure
range, shakedown limit moment decreases with pressure
increase pressure. Increased values of β cause corresponding
Fig. 13 Comparison of IP shakedown load boundaries for
different hillside angle (β)
The critical location around the vessel-nozzle intersection
at which shakedown condition is first reached is between angle
θ = 90° and 180° as illustrated in Fig. 14 for β = 10° as an
example. See Fig. 2 for definition of angle θ.

7 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 0.35
β
β=30°
0.3

Normalized In-Plane Bending MOment

IP

0.25
β=0°

[M / Mp (Nozzle)]
β
0.2 β=40° OPO

0.15

0.1 β=0°

Fig. 14 Location for SD critical element for β = 10° model 0.05

and steady pressure + cyclic IP moment
0
0 10 20 30
Comparison of Cyclic OPO and IP Elastic and Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]
Shakedown Moments Domains Fig. 16 Comparison of shakedown boundaries for different
hillside angle (β) for IP and OPO moment loading
Figure 15 and Fig. 16 compare the elastic limits and
shakedown IP and OPO limit moment in the Bree diagram at
different hillside angles ranging from 0° to 40°. In the low Verification of Elastic Shakedown Limit Results Via
pressure range, IP limits are considerably higher than OPO Full Elastic-Plastic Cyclic Loading Fe Analysis
limits. At zero pressure, ratios of IP to OP shakedown limit
moments vary from 2.6 - 2.2 for β = 0° - 30°. In order to check the accuracy of NSM prediction for
shakedown moments and to illustrate the potential mode of
0.18
failure if this limit is exceeded, a full cyclic elastic plastic
0.16
β analysis is performed at some sample operating cases. The
equivalent plastic strain at the critical integration points
Normalized In-Plane Bending MOment

β=30 °
0.14 determined by in the NSM is monitored. Variation of such
IP plastic strain with time (or cycles) will determine whether
0.12 shakedown has occurred after the first moment cycle at that
[M / Mp (Nozzle)]

β=0 °
point. Two different operating cases for an intersection with β =
0.1
OPO β
20° for each of OPO and IP loading cases are selected for this
0.08 β=40 ° check, viz. P/PY =0.05 and P/PY=0.20 as illustrated in Fig. 17.
At each pressure level, two cyclic analyses were performed just
0.06 below and above the NSM-predicted shakedown boundary.
β=0 ° Exact locations of the eight operating points are listed in Table
0.04
2.
0.02
The full cyclic elastic-plastic analysis involves application
0 of the steady pressure coupled with three full OPO / IP moment
0 10 20 30 cycles as illustrated in Fig. 18. The ASME Sec. VIII Div. 2 [3]
Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)] procedure was taken as a guidance for such number of cycles.
The equivalent plastic strain is monitored over the moment
Fig. 15 Comparison of elastic limit boundaries for different cycles. Normalized equivalent stress is then plotted against the
hillside angle (β) for IP and OPO moment loading normalized equivalent plastic strain in a manner similar to that
adopted by Oda et al [31]. The normalizing values are: SY for
stress and SY/E for plastic strain, and the sign of equivalent
stress is the same as that of the mean stress.

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 2 Cyclic elastic plastic verification points in Fig. 17
β = 20° (IP) β = 20° (OPO)
Normalized Bending Behavior
0.35 Internal Pressure
Point Moment
3b [% Py (Vessel)]
3a
[M / Mp (Nozzle)]
0.3 1a 5 0.135 SD
Normalized In-Plane Bending MOment

4b
4a
1b 5 0.145 RP
0.25 2a 20 0.135 SD
2b 20 0.145 RP
[M / Mp (Nozzle)]

0.2 3a 5 0.31 SD
1b 2b
3b 5 0.34 RP
0.15 4a 20 0.26 SD
1a 2a
4b 20 0.29 R
0.1

0.05 1.2
1
0 0.8

Normalized Equivalent Stress

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.6
Internal Pressure [% Py (Vessel)]
0.4
Fig. 17 Cyclic elastic plastic verification points 0.2
0
-0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 -0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Normalized Equivalent Plastic Strain
Fig. 19 Point 1a shakedown behavior due to cyclic loading
Load

1.5

1
0
Normalized Equivalent Stress

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Steps M/Mmax
0.5
P/Pmax
Fig. 18 Pattern for moment and pressure loading in cyclic
analysis 0
0 2 4 6 8
The outcome of the full cyclic elastic-plastic analysis
showed that all operating points (O/P) below the SD limits (1a,
2a, 3a and 4a) exhibited elastic shakedown behavior in -0.5
accordance with NSM predictions. An example of the plastic
response at O/P (1a) is shown in Fig. 19. On the other hand, the
full cyclic analysis have shown that the post shakedown -1 Normalized Equivalent Plastic Strain
behavior at O/P 1b, 2b and 3b constitute a state of reversed
plasticity (RP). Figure 20 shows an example of RP behavior for Fig. 20 Point 1b plastic cycling behavior due to cyclic
O/P 1b. Full cyclic analysis for O/P 4b exhibited a ratcheting loading including zooming the cyclic portion
behavior as illustrated in Fig. 21. Table 2 summarizes the
results of all test O/P. These checks verify the ability of NSM
to correctly predict shakedown limits.

9 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


1.2
1 combination of internal pressure with IP and OP nozzle
Normalized Equivalent Stress
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Normalized Equivalent Plastic Strain
Fig. 21 Point 4b ratcheting behavior due to cyclic loading
including zooming the cyclic portion
Both NSM and full cyclic plastic analyses have utilized
perfect-plasticity material model (PP). Adoption of such model
yields conservative results for shakedown domains. Abdallah et
al [32] compared NSM predictions for SD of pipe elbows using
both PP and linear kinematic hardening (LKH) models, and
showed that SD domains are slightly larger than for PP models.
Adoption of nonlinear kinematic hardening NLKH) models will
require development of larger number of material constants.
The SD domains obtained above show some distinctive
features of radial and hillside nozzle junctions. SD limits for IP
moments are much higher than for OP moments, particularly at
the low pressure range. For OP moments, the SD limit is
pressure independent all over the whole pressure range. For IP
moment, the SD moments is pressure independent only in the
low pressure range. Most of these features can possible be
interpreted in terms of subtle interactions between the effects of
pressure and moments. The fact that post shakedown behavior
always involves reversed plasticity when the SD limit is
pressure independent is most probably related to the formation
of isolated plastic zones at the highly stressed locations
surrounded by large elastic zones. However, such
interpretation requires further investigations.
The fact that SD domains are bounded by a critical
pressure ratio P/PY of about 30% at zero moment implies that
this limiting pressure ratio represents condition of initial
yielding under pressure load only. The fact that this critical
value is independent of the type of bending moment IP or OP
supports this view. Further, Fig. 6 showing elastic and SD
moments under pressure only reveals that the yielding initiate at
P/PY of about 30 %.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
CONCLUSION
The results reported in this paper have succeeded in
illustrating the effects of increased hillside angle β, and
moments on shakedown limits. Three loading cases are
considered; cyclic pressure with no nozzle bending and
combination of steady pressure and cyclic out-of-plane opening
bending (OPO) and cyclic in-plane (IP) bending. Under cyclic
pressure, the shakedown pressure was found to increase with
increased hillside angle. Under cyclic OPO nozzle bending, a
pressure-independent shakedown moment was obtained, whose
level increases with increased values of the hillside angle.
Under cyclic IP nozzle bending, shakedown moment remains
constant with pressure in the low pressure range, and reduces
0.4 0.5 0.6
with pressure in the high pressure range. Similar to OP bending,
level of IP shakedown moment increases with increased values
of the hillside angle. The increased shakedown capacity of
hillside nozzle junctions in cylindrical vessels can be
interpreted in terms of reduced stress concentration as the
hillside angle is increased, contrary to what ASME rules
suggests [3].
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support provided by ENPPI;
Engineering for Petroleum and Process Industries Company in
Egypt to the research reported in this paper
REFERENCES
[1] M. J. L. Wichman K. R., Hopper A. G., Local Stresses
In Spherical And Cylindrical Shells Due To External
Loadings. 1979.
[2] J. L. Mershon, K. Mokhtarian, G. V. Ranjan, and E. C.
Rodabaugh, “Local Stresses In Cylindrical Shells Due
To External Loadings On Nozzles-Supplement to WRC
Bulletin No. 107 (Revision I),” WRC 297 | Welding
Research Council, 1987.
[3] ASME B&PVC, Section VIII, Division 2, Rules for
Construction of Pressure Vessels - Alternative Rules.
New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2015.
[4] J. L. Mershon, “Part 1: Interpretive Report on Oblique
Nozzle Connections in Pressure Vessel Heads and
Shells Under Internal Pressure Loading,” Weld. Res.
Bull. No. 153., 1970.
[5] H. F. Wang, Z. F. Sang, L. P. Xue, and G. E. O. Widera,
“Elastic Stresses of Pressurized Cylinders With Hillside
Nozzle,” J. Press. Vessel Technol., vol. 128, no. 4, p.
625, 2006.
[6] T. Hazlett, “Three Dimensional Parametric Finite
Element Analyses of Hillside Connections in Cylinders
Subject to Internal Pressure,” Proceedings, 1990 ASME
Press. Vessel. Pip. Conf. Press. Vessel Pip. Div. ASME,
pp. 141–145.
[7] V. N. Skopinsky, “Numerical Stress Analysis of
10 Copyright © 2017 ASME
 Intersecting Cylindrical Shells,” J. Press. Vessel
Technol., vol. 115, no. 3, p. 275, 1993.
[8] E. C. Rodabaugh, “Part 1: Internal Pressure Design Of
Isolated Nozzles In Cylindrical Vessels With d/D Up To
And Including 1.00: Report No. 1: Code Rules For
Internal Pressure Design Of Isolated Nozzles In
Cylindrical Vessels,” WRC 451 | Weld. Res. Counc.,
2000.
[9] J. Fang, N. Li, Z. F. Sang, and G. E. O. Widera, “Study
of Elastic Strength for Cylinders With Hillside Nozzle,”
J. Press. Vessel Technol., vol. 131, no. 5, p. 51202,
2009.
[10] J. BREE, “Elastic-plastic behaviour of thin tubes
subjected to internal pressure and intermittent high-heat
fluxes with application to fast-nuclear-reactor fuel
elements,” J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des., vol. 2, no. 3, pp.
226–238, Jul. 1967.
[11] M. M. Megahed, “Influence of hardening rule on the
elasto-plastic behaviour of a simple structure under
cyclic loading,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., vol. 23, no. 3, pp.
169–182, Jan. 1981.
[12] D. Mackenzie and J. T. Boyle, “A method of estimating
limit loads by iterative elastic analysis. I—Simple
examples,” Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip., vol. 53, no. 1, pp.
77–95, 1992.
[13] C. Nadarajah, D. Mackenzie, and J. T. Boyle, “A
method of estimating limit loads by iterative elastic
analysis. II—Nozzle sphere intersections with internal
pressure and radial load,” Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip., vol.
53, no. 1, pp. 97–119, 1992.
[14] J. Shi, D. Mackenzie, and J. T. Boyle, “A method of
estimating limit loads by iterative elastic analysis. III—
Torispherical heads under internal pressure,” Int. J.
Press. Vessel. Pip., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 121–142, 1992.
[15] E. Melan, “Theorie Statisch Unbestimmter Systeme aus
Ideal-plastichem Baustoff,” Sitzungsberichte der Kais.
Akad. der Wissenschaften Wien, vol. 2A, pp. 195–218,
1936.
[16] A. R. S. Ponter, P. Fuschi, and M. Engelhardt, “Limit
analysis for a general class of yield conditions,” Eur. J.
Mech. - A/Solids, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 401–421, 2000.
[17] H. F. Chen and A. R. S. Ponter, “Shakedown and limit
analyses for 3-Dstructures using the linear matching
method,” Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip., vol. 78, 2001.
[18] J. Ure, H. Chen, and D. Tipping, “Verification of the
Linear Matching Method for Limit and Shakedown
Analysis by Comparison With Experiments,” J. Press.
Vessel Technol., vol. 137, no. June 2015, p.
V01AT01A036, 2015.
[19] M. Muscat and D. Mackenzie, “Elastic-Shakedown
Analysis of Axisymmetric Nozzles,” J. Press. Vessel
Technol., vol. 125, no. 4, p. 365, 2003.
[20] H. F. Abdalla, M. M. Megahed, and M. Y. a. Younan,
“Determination of Shakedown Limit Load for a 90-
Degree Pipe Bend Using a Simplified Technique,” J.
Press. Vessel Technol., vol. 128, no. 4, p. 618, 2006.
11
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[21] C.-S. Oh, Y.-J. Kim, and C.-Y. Park, “Shakedown limit
loads for elbows under internal pressure and cyclic in-
plane bending,” Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip., vol. 85, no. 6,
pp. 394–405, 2008.
[22] N. VERMAAK, L. VALDEVIT, A. G. EVANS, F. W.
ZOK, and R. M. MCMEEKING, “Implications of
Shakedown for Design of Actively Cooled
Thermostructural Panels,” J. Mech. Mater. Struct., vol.
6, pp. 1313–1327, 2011.
[23] H. F. Abdalla, M. M. Megahed, and M. Y. A. Younan,
“Comparison of Pipe Bend Ratchetting/Shakedown
Test Results With the Shakedown Boundary
Determined via a Simplified Technique,” in Volume 3:
Design and Analysis, 2009, pp. 659–666.
[24] H. F. Abdalla, M. M. Megahed, and M. Y. A. Younan,
“A simplified technique for shakedown limit load
determination of a large square plate with a small
central hole under cyclic biaxial loading,” Nucl. Eng.
Des., vol. 241, no. 3, pp. 657–665, 2011.
[25] H. F. Abdalla, “Shakedown Limit Load Determination
of a Cylindrical Vessel–Nozzle Intersection Subjected
to Steady Internal Pressures and Cyclic In-Plane
Bending Moments,” J. Press. Vessel Technol., vol. 136,
no. 5, p. 51602, Jun. 2014.
[26] H. F. Abdalla, “Elastic shakedown boundary
determination of a cylindrical vessel-nozzle intersection
subjected to steady internal pressures and cyclic out-of-
plane bending moments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., vol. 267, pp.
189–196, 2014.
[27] T. D. Canonsburg, “ANSYS Mechanical APDL
Element Reference,” vol. 15317, no. October, pp. 724–
746, 2012.
[28] H. F. Wang, Z. F. Sang, L. P. Xue, and G. E. O. Widera,
“Burst Pressure of Pressurized Cylinders With Hillside
Nozzle,” J. Press. Vessel Technol., vol. 131, no. 4, p.
41204, 2009.
[29] B. H. Wu, Z. F. Sang, and G. E. O. Widera, “Plastic
Analysis for Cylindrical Vessels Under In-Plane
Moment on the Nozzle,” J. Press. Vessel Technol., vol.
132, no. 6, p. 61203, 2010.
[30] Z. F. Sang, Z. L. Wang, L. P. Xue, and G. E. O. Widera,
“Plastic limit loads of nozzles in cylindrical vessels
under out-of-plane moment loading,” Int. J. Press.
Vessel. Pip., vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 638–648, 2005.
[31] A. A. Oda, M. M. Megahed, and H. F. Abdalla, “Effect
of local wall thinning on shakedown regimes of
pressurized elbows subjected to cyclic in-plane and out-
of-plane bending,” Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip., vol. 134,
no. August, pp. 11–24, 2015.
[32] H. F. Abdalla, M. Y. A. Younan, and M. M. Megahed,
“Shakedown Limit Load Determination for a
Kinematically Hardening 90 deg Pipe Bend Subjected
to Steady Internal Pressures and Cyclic Bending
Moments,” J. Press. Vessel Technol., vol. 133, no. 5, p.
51212, 2011.
Copyright © 2017 ASME