Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference
PVP2011
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore,
2011 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
GLOBAL RATCHETING BY ELASTIC-PLASTIC FEA
ACCORDING TO ASME SECTION VIII RULES
Arturs Kalnins
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA, U.S.A.
ak01@Lehigh.edu
ABSTRACT
A framework of global ratcheting is developed for which
the ratcheting measure is incremental permanent change of
shape of a vessel or component. The changes of shape are
such that they reduce the resistance to collapse, and, upon
extended cycling, can lead to eventual failure by collapse. A
ratcheting check is designed to prevent this failure. This
framework fits the ratcheting rules that are currently in the
2010 Section VIII of the ASME B&PV Code. Tools are
provided for ratcheting assessment based on this framework,
and examples are presented that illustrate their application.
1 INTRODUCTION
While the major design codes leave no doubt that a
ratcheting check is needed, there is still not much consensus
on exactly how the ratcheting of a vessel is to be measured
and the failure that a ratcheting check is to address. In the
early days, when the major analysis tool was based on elastic
shell theory, there was not much dispute about that. For
obvious reasons, the applications of today require more.
It is now commonly agreed that doing more should be
based on elastic-plastic FEA. Beyond that, two different kinds
of events, both referred to as "ratcheting", are recognized. One
is called local ratcheting and the other global ratcheting.
For local ratcheting, the ratcheting measure is the
accumulated strain magnitude within a small volume
(theoretically a point). The mode of failure that is being
prevented by the ratcheting check is of the same kind as that
associated with a strain limit for static loading. Local
ratcheting will not be considered in this paper but will be left
1 Copyright 2011 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Proceedings of PVP2011
Maryland,
Division USA
Conference
July 17-22, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland
PVP2011-57196
PVP2011-57196
Jrgen Rudolph
AREVA NP GmbH
Erlangen, Germany
rudolph.juergen@areva.com
to a separate paper, PVP2011-57229, which is also scheduled
to appear in the Proceedings of the PVP2011 conference.
The following is a typical scenario of the global ratcheting
that is considered in this paper. A vessel or component is
subjected first to static mechanical loading, which is kept
steady in time. The applied magnitude of the loading is set
below the collapse load, so that the design requirements for
static loading are met. Then cyclic loading that does not
influence collapse, such as a temperature field, is
superimposed on the stress state of the steady mechanical
loading. Failure by ratcheting can occur if this combination of
steady and cyclic loading produces incremental permanent
changes of shape of the vessel that reduce its resistance to
collapse. Upon extended cycling, the resistance to collapse is
lowered to the point at which the steady mechanical loading
can produce collapse. This is the failure mode that the
ratcheting check is designed to prevent. Since collapse is a
global event, such cyclic behavior of a vessel will be called
global ratcheting. The scope of this paper is limited to this
kind of global ratcheting.
The first objective of this paper is to provide the technical
basis for global ratcheting according to the above scenario.
The second objective is to provide the tools for its assessment
and to present examples that illustrate their application.
2 BACKGROUND
Numerous papers have been published on ratcheting in
conference proceedings and journals. Among those that use
direct cycle-by-cycle, elastic-plastic FEA, the following are
1
cited. Garud (1993) reported experimental results on
ratcheting of an elbow-pipe assembly and compared them with
 2 According to the theory of limit analysis, collapse of the
theoretical results; Hbel (1996) considered the concepts of
3 shell for a steady internal pressure is governed by the hoop
material and structural ratcheting; Kalnins (2001) developed
the concept of the elastic core; Okamoto, Nishiguchi, and membrane stress defined by equation(1), in which S y is the
4
Aoki (2001) proposed a limit on the equivalent plastic strain; yield strength. If the hoop membrane stress is equal to the
5
Kalnins (2002) proposed the permanent displacement as the yield strength, then collapse occurs.
measure to address the failure mode of incremental growth;
6 R
Bhagwagar and Gurdal (2003) considered the ratcheting of a
7 hoop membrane = Pressure Sy (1)
straight pipe and Yang and Gurdal (2003) a piping elbow; t
8
and Rahman, Hassan, and Corona (2008) presented
If the pressure is set at 2/3 of the limit pressure, then
experimental results for a pressurized pipe subjected to cyclic
bending and compared them with theoretical simulations. An collapse does not occur provided that the inside radius, R , and
excellent summary of the basic issues involved in ratcheting thickness, t , are the dimensions of the undeformed shell. The
9 key is that it could occur if the R / t ratio is increased in the
was given by Reinhardt (2003) .
event of global ratcheting.
In addition, non-cyclic methods that identify the boundary
between the shakedown and ratcheting domains directly, This can be seen to happen from the results of heat transfer
without the need for cycle-by-cycle analysis, have also been and stress analysis problems that are obtained from the
10 11 13
developed, pioneered by Reinhardt and Ponter . Abaqus finite element program. In the stress analysis
problem, the elastic-perfectly plastic (EPP) material model
and the non-linear geometry option are used (the basis for
3 HOW GLOBAL RATCHETING LEADS TO using the EPP model is in section 5.1 below).
COLLAPSE
From these results, the contour of the displacement
The key part of the scenario for global ratcheting in section magnitude, U, is plotted in Figure 2. The Legend shows that,
1 above is that the incremental permanent changes of shape of after 15 cycles, the internal radius, initially at 95 mm, has
the vessel reduce its resistance to collapse, and that it is the increased permanently by 2.281 mm as indicated by the
steady mechanical loading that produces that collapse. maximum U (red line of elements), and that the thickness,
The objective of this section is to identify the parameters initially at 10 mm, has decreased by 0.168 mm, which is
that are involved in reducing the resistance to collapse. This is obtained by subtracting the minimum U (blue) from the
12
achieved by considering the Bree problem. Its geometry maximum U (red).
consists of a cylindrical shell, sketched in Figure 1. The cross- According to equation(1), the incremental change of the
hatched object on top is a rigid, circular plate that keeps the shape of increased radius and decreased thickness has reduced
upper edge of the shell from rotating. For the purposes of this the resistance to collapse and moved the shell closer to
paper, the mean shell radius is assumed 95 mm and the eventual collapse by 2/3 of the limit pressure.
thickness 10 mm. A material with yield strength of 262 MPa
(38 ksi) is assumed. The shell is subjected to internal pressure.
Temperature on the inside surface is cycled between 371C
(700F) and 21C (70F), and the outside kept at 21C.

TEMP=
371 8 21C

TEMP=21C

Steady
Pressure

Figure 2: Contour of U after 15 thermal cycles, plotted on

Figure 1: Bree problem undeformed (left) and permanently deformed shell geometry

2 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 To demonstrate how collapse could occur, the cycle-by-
cycle changes of the radius and the thickness observed from
Figure 2 are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. If the straight- 300
line behavior in these figures remained after 15 cycles, the Collapse
280

Hoop Membrane Stress

hoop membrane stress of equation(1) could be extrapolated
until it reached the yield strength of 262 MPa, which would 260
indicate collapse. Figure 5 shows that to happen at 196 cycles.
240
This is not to be interpreted as a prediction of the actual
collapse at 196 cycles. The purpose of Figure 5 is only to 220
show how the parameters that are involved in reducing the
resistance to collapse could eventually lead to collapse. The 200
prediction of the number of cycles for the actual collapse plays
180
no role in the ratcheting assessment of this paper.
160
0 40 80 120 160 200
Thermal Stress Cycles
98.0
97.5
97.0
Figure 5: Extrapolation of hoop membrane stress to yield
Mean Radius

96.5
96.0
This completes the illustration of how global ratcheting can
95.5 lead to collapse. It fits the rules of Section VIII of the 2010
14
95.0 ASME B&PV Code , from which excerpts are cited next.
94.5
94.0
4 EXCERPTS FROM ASME SECTION VIII
The rules for ratcheting assessment by elastic-plastic
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 14
analysis appear in Section VIII-Division 2 , paragraph
Thermal Stress Cycles 5.5.7.2 and in Division 3, paragraph KD-234.1. Additional
15
commentaries are given by Osage , in paragraph 5.5.7. A
sample problem was provided by Sowinski, Osage, and
16
Brown . The relevant parts for this paper are listed below:
Figure 3: Cyclic increase of radius 5.5.7.2c): STEP 3 An elastic-perfectly plastic [EPP]
material model shall be used in the analysis. The von Mises
yield function and associated flow rule should be utilized. The
yield strength defining the plastic limit shall be the minimum
10.1 specified yield strength at temperature from Annex 3.D. The
effects of non-linear geometry shall be considered in the
analysis.
10.0 5.5.7.2e): STEP 5 The ratcheting criteria below shall be
Thickness

evaluated after application of a minimum of three complete

repetitions of the cycle. Additional cycles may need to be
9.9 applied to demonstrate convergence. If any one of the
following conditions is met, the ratcheting criteria are
satisfied. If the criteria shown below are not satisfied, the
9.8
component configuration (i.e. thickness) shall be modified or
applied loads reduced and the analysis repeated.
9.7 1) There is no plastic action (i.e. zero plastic strains
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 incurred) in the component.
Thermal Stress Cycles
2) There is an elastic core in the primary-load-bearing
boundary of the component.
3) There is not a permanent change in the overall dimensions
of the component. This can be demonstrated by developing a
plot of relevant component dimensions versus time between
Figure 4: Cyclic decrease of thickness the last and the next to the last cycles.

3 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


5 EXAMPLES
5.1 Description of Examples
In the examples, the models shown are subjected to a steady
mechanical load and a cycled temperature field. The
mechanical load is set at 2/3 of the limit load that is obtained
14
from paragraph 5.2.3 of ASME Section VIII, Division 2 .
After the pressure is applied, the temperature on the inside
(or top) surface is then cycled slowly between a specified
value for each example and 21C (70F). The outside surface
(or bottom) is kept at 21 C. The material is SA-516 Gr. 70
steel, with a yield strength of 262 MPa (38 ksi) at 21C.
In the FEA, the bold-faced parts of Section VIII paragraph
5.5.7.2c) in section 4 above, are used. The use of the EPP
model in this paper is justified on the following grounds. Test
17 18
data (e.g., Fig. 2.16 in Ellyin , and Lefebvre and Ellyin )
have shown strain amplitude-stress amplitude curves for SA-
516 Gr.70 steel that indicate softening with cycles up to strain
amplitude of 0.3 % and hardening above that. Material models
that can handle such cyclic action are still in research stage.
An EPP model with zero cyclic softening and hardening with
cycles provides a middle-ground for design purposes. The
only material parameters that are needed are the elasticity
modulus, yield strength, and thermal expansion coefficient.
Their temperature dependent values are used in the FEA.
As per Section VIII paragraph 5.5.7.2e)3), the ratcheting
measure is the permanent change in the overall dimensions of
the component. In this paper, this measure is indicated by the
permanent displacement magnitude at the location at which it
is greatest. That location is determined from the contour plots
of the displacement magnitude (U, in Abaqus).
5.2 Shell with Hemispherical Head
We begin with the vessel shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: One-half of model of undeformed vessel
4 Copyright 2011 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
The vessel consists of a cylindrical shell with a
hemispherical head. The mean radius of the shell is 250 mm
and the thickness of the shell and head are both 16 mm. Limit
analysis for internal pressure is performed and the limit
pressure of 19.40 MPa (2.81 ksi) is obtained. The limit state
indicates that the critical pressure boundary for collapse is the
shell. The vessel is subjected to a steady pressure of 12.93
MPa (1.88 ksi), which is 2/3 of the limit pressure. A cyclic
temperature field is superimposed to the steady pressure.
5.2.1 Cycling between 200C and 21C
The temperature on the inside surface is cycled slowly
between 200C (392F) and 21C (70F) and the outside
surface is kept at a steady 21C (70F).
After 15 cycles, the contour of the permanently deformed
vessel is shown in Figure 7. Its Legend indicates the critical
location of the ratcheting measure that is to be used in the
ratcheting check. It shows that, after the 15th cycle (load Step
31), the maximum U is 0.330, which occurs at node 331. For
the global ratcheting check, the change of U per cycle at that
node is recorded in Table 1.
As seen from Table 1, the change in U is already zero at
the end of the 3rd cycle, within four significant digits. U is also
plotted at the ends of 15 cycles in Figure 8. No further change
in U is detected. The conclusion is that, according to
paragraph 5.5.7.2e)3) of section 4 above, the Section VIII
ratcheting check for this case passes.
Table 1: U and its change per cycle for cycling at 200C
Cycle Node U Change
0 331 0.2269
1 331 0.3300 0.1030
2 331 0. 3300 0.0000
3 331 0. 3300 0.0000
Figure 7: Contour of U plotted on undeformed (left) and
permanently deformed shell geometry after 15 temperature
cycles between 200C and 21C
 As seen from Table 2, the change in U indicates a slight
increase from the 13th to the 15th cycle. U is also plotted at the
ends of 15 cycles in Figure 10. An almost linear change in U
0.35
is detected. The conclusion is that, according to paragraph
5.5.7.2e)3) cited in section 4 above, the Section VIII
0.30 ratcheting check for this case does not pass.
Displacement Magnitude

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Thermal Stress Cycles

Figure 8: Permanent displacements at node 332 at ends of

15 temperature cycles between 200 C and 21C

Figure 9: Contour of U plotted on undeformed and

5.2.2 Cycling between 250C and 21C deformed shell geometry after 15 temperature cycles between
Next, the cycling of the temperature between 250C 250 C and 21C
(464F) and 21C (70F) is performed.
After 15 cycles, the contour of the permanently deformed
vessel is shown in Figure 9. Its Legend indicates that the
3.00
critical location of the ratcheting measure is at node 251. For
the global ratcheting check, the change of U per cycle at that
Displacement Magnitude

node is recorded in Table 2. 2.50

2.00
Table 2: U and its change per cycle for cycling at 250C
Cycle Node U Change 1.50
0 251 0.222
1 251 0.461 0.2392 1.00
2 251 0.601 0.1401
3 251 0.740 0.1393 0.50
4 251 0.879 0.1383
5 251 1.016 0.1377 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
6 251 1.154 0.1378
7 251 1.291 0.1370 Thermal Stress Cycles
8 251 1.429 0.1380
9 251 1.567 0.1381
10 251 1.707 0.1392 Figure 10: Permanent displacements at node 252 at ends
11 251 1.846 0.1393 of 15 temperature cycles between 250 C and 21C
12 251 1.985 0.1394
13 251 2.127 0.1414 This completes the ratcheting assessment of the vessel. The
14 251 2.268 0.1415 conclusion is that the cycling between 200C and 21C passes
15 251 2.410 0.1416 the ratcheting check but that between 250C and 21C does
not.

5 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 5.3 Shell with Flat Plate Bottom
We consider now a vessel that consists of a cylindrical shell
with a welded-on flat circular bottom. One-half of the cross
section of its undeformed model is shown in Figure 11. The
mean radius of the shell is 250 mm, its thickness is 4 mm, and
the plate thickness is 10 mm.
the outside surface is kept at 21C. The 371C (700F) is
meant to be the highest temperature at which the effects of
creep can be neglected and the highest at which this ratcheting
assessment is regarded as appropriate.
Figure 13 shows the contour plot needed for identifying the
location of the ratcheting measure, U. Its Legend shows that
the maximum permanent U occurs at node 9001, which is at
the center of the bottom plate. This means that U at node 9001
is plotted for the ratcheting check, as shown in Figure 14.

Figure 11: One-half of model of undeformed vessel

In order to identify the critical pressure boundary for
collapse, limit analysis for the applied pressure is performed
first. The limit pressure of 0.954 MPa (0.138 ksi) is obtained.
The limit state is shown in Figure 12. It identifies the bottom
plate as the critical pressure boundary.
Figure 13: Contour of U plotted on undeformed and
deformed shell geometry after 15 temperature cycles between
371 C and 21C

25
Displacement Magnitude

20

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Thermal Stress Cycles

Figure 12: Limit state of vessel at limit pressure at Plate Center node 9601

The vessel is subjected to a steady internal pressure of

0.636 MPa (0.092 ksi), which is 2/3 of the limit pressure. The Figure 14: Permanent displacements of plate center at
temperature on the inside surface of the vessel is cycled ends of 15 temperature cycles between 371 C and 21C
between 371C (700F) and 21C (70F) for 15 cycles, and

6 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Table 3 provides the details for performing the ratcheting
check of ASME Section VIII, which is cited in paragraph
5.5.7.2.e)3) of section 4 above. It consists of the comparison
of the component dimensions (represented by displacements)
between the last and the next to the last cycles. Its last row
shows that the difference of the displacement at the ends of the
15th and 14th cycle is 0.08 mm, which amounts to 0.36% of
that of the 15th cycle. Section VIII leaves it up to the analyst to
decide whether the check passes.
6. After a reasonable number of cycles, the deformed shape
of the vessel should be consistent with that of the limit
state for the steady mechanical loading.
7. Location of the critical change of shape can be determined
from the Legend of the contour plot of the displacement
magnitude, which is provided by the postprocessors of
commonly used finite element programs.
REFERENCES

It is recognized that this difference only appears to 1

approach zero but will never reach it. At some point, it will Garud Y.S., (1993), Analysis and Prediction of Fatigue-
lose accuracy of subtracting all significant digits used in the Ratcheting: Comparison with Tests and Code Rules,
analysis, which renders any results of additional cycling Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessel & Piping Division
meaningless. In the judgment of the authors, the results Conference, PVP vol. 266, Creep, Fatigue Evaluation, and
indicate that the vessel passes the ratcheting check. Leak-Before-Break Assessment, pp. 23-32.
2
Table 3: U and its change per cycle for cycling at 371C Hbel, H., (1996), Basic conditions for material and
th
% of 15 structural ratcheting, Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol.
Cycles Node U Change
cycle 162, pp. 55-65.
1 9001 15.660 10.804 48.318 3
2 9001 18.350 2.690 12.030 Kalnins, A., (2001), Shakedown Check for Pressure Vessels
3 9001 19.600 1.250 5.590 Using Plastic FEA, ASME Bound Vol. 419, pp. 9-16,
Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes Standards, edited by M. D.
4 9001 20.330 0.730 3.265 Rana.
5 9001 20.810 0.480 2.147
6 9001 21.150 0.340 1.521 4
Okamoto, A., Nishiguchi, I., and Aoki, M., (2001), Recent
7 9001 21.410 0.260 1.163 Advancement on the Draft of Alternate Stress Evaluation
8 9001 21.610 0.200 0.894 Criteria in Japan Based on Partial Inelastic Analyses, ASME
9 9001 21.780 0.170 0.760 PVP vol. 419, pp. 17-24, Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes
Standards, edited by M. D. Rana.
10 9001 21.910 0.130 0.581
11 9001 22.030 0.120 0.537 5
Kalnins, A., (2002), Shakedown and Ratcheting Directives
12 9001 22.120 0.090 0.403 of ASME B&PV Code and their Execution, ASME PVP vol.
13 9001 22.210 0.090 0.403 No. 439, pp. 47-55, Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and
14 9001 22.290 0.080 0.358 Standards, edited by R.D. Rana.
15 9001 22.360 0.070 0.313 6
Bhagwagar, T., and Gurdal, R., (2003), Straight Pipe Cyclic
Analyses for Shakedown Verification Code Criteria, ASME
PVP vol. No. 453, pp. 19-30, Pressure Vessel and Piping
6 CONCLUSIONS Codes and Standards, edited by G.S. Chakrabarti.
For the global ratcheting considered in this paper:
7
Yang, J., and Gurdal, R., (2003), Piping Elbow Cyclic
1. Loading consists of steady mechanical loading and cyclic Analyses for Shakedown Verification, ASME PVP vol. No.
loading that does not influence collapse, such as a 453, pp. 49-59, Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and
temperature field. Standards, edited by G.S. Chakrabarti.
2. Magnitude of the mechanical loading must meet design 8
requirements for static loading. Rahman, S.M., Hassan, T., and Corona, E., (2008),
"Evaluation of Cyclic Plasticity Models in Ratcheting
3. Ratcheting measure is permanent change of shape at end of Simulation of Straight Pipes Under Cyclic Bending and
a cycle, which can be represented by overall dimensions or Steady Internal Pressure", International Journal of Plasticity,
displacements. vol. 24, pp. 17561791.
4. Ratcheting is a threat to serviceability of a vessel if the 9
changing shape reduces the resistance to collapse. Reinhardt, W., (2003), Distinguishing Ratcheting and
Shakedown Conditions in Pressure Vessels, Proceedings of
5. Eventual failure mode is collapse produced by the steady ASME Pressure Vessel & Piping Division Conference,
mechanical loading after extended cycling. PVP2003-1885, PVP vol. 458, Computer Technology and
Applications, pp. 13-26.

7 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 10
Reinhardt, W., (2008), A Non-Cyclic Method for Plastic
Shakedown Analysis, ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, vol. 130, No. 3, paper No. 031209.
11
Chen, H., and Ponter, A.R.S., (2001), A Method for the
Evaluation of a Ratchet Limit and the Amplitude of Plastic
Strain for Bodies Subjected to Cyclic Loading, European
Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids, vol. 20, pp. 555-571.
12
Bree, J., (1967), Elastic-Plastic Behaviour of Thin Tubes
Subjected to Internal Pressure and Intermittent High Heat
Fluxes with Application to Fast-Nuclear-Reactor Fuel
Elements, Journal of Strain Analysis, vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 226-
238.
13
ABAQUS Finite Element Program, Abaqus/Standard 6.9-1,
Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, R.I., by
Educational License to Lehigh University.
14
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, (2010), American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
15
Osage, D.A., (2009), "ASME Section VIII-Division 2
Criteria and Commentary", ASME PTB-1-2009, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
16
Sowinski, J.C., Osage, D.A., and Brown, R.G., (2010),
"ASME Section VIII-Division 2 Example Problem Manual",
ASME PTB-3-2010, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York.
17
Ellyin, F., (1997), Fatigue Damage, Crack Growth and Life
Prediction, Chapman & Hall, New York, 1st Edition.
18
Lefebvre, D. and Ellyin, F., (1984), "Cyclic Response and
Inelastic Strain Energy in Low Cycle Fatigue", International
Journal of Fatigue, vol. 6, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, pp.
9-15.

8 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms