Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

PVP2012
July 15-19, 2012, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA

PVP2012-78359
ELASTIC-PLASTIC FATIGUE EVALUATION OF A HEAVY WALL NOZZLE SUBJECT TO RAPID
THERMAL TRANSIENTS

David J. Dewees, P.E.

The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.
Shaker Heights, Ohio USA
Email: [email protected]

S. Michael Cooch, P.E.

DuPont Engineering and Research Technology
Wilmington, Delaware USA
Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a case study highlighting the use of the
S PS allowable limit on the primary plus secondary stress range
elastic-plastic fatigue methods in ASME Section VIII, Division (psi or MPa)
2 in the design fatigue evaluation of a heavy wall nozzle. The Salt ,k alternating equivalent stress for the kth cycle (psi or MPa)
nozzle is expected to undergo a variety of thermal cycles during ∆eij change in total strain range components at the point under
its design life, some of which include a rapid heatup or
evaluation for the kth loading condition or cycle
cooldown. The elastic fatigue approach is used for the initial
evaluation; however, the thermal stresses induced by the rapid ∆e e
ij
change in elastic strain range components at the point under
transients result in the application of a significant fatigue penalty evaluation for the kth loading condition or cycle
factor ( K e , k ).
An elastic-plastic stress analysis is therefore used to provide
∆pij change in plastic strain range components at the point under
a more appropriate evaluation of the fatigue penalty factor for evaluation for the kth loading condition or cycle
this case. Both the Twice-Yield and cycle-by-cycle methods are ∆ε peq ,k equivalent plastic strain range for the kth loading condition or
used to calculate the fatigue penalty factor, and give very similar cycle
results. ∆ε eff ,k Effective strain range for the kth cycle

NOMENCLATURE ( ∆ε t ,k ) ep Elastic-plastic effective strain range

( ∆ε t ,k )e Elastic effective strain range
K e, k Fatigue penalty factor for the kth loadcase pair
E y ,k Modulus of elasticity evaluated at the temperature of interest
m material constant used for the fatigue knock-down factor used
in the simplified elastic-plastic analysis (psi or MPa)
n material constant used for the fatigue knock-down factor used K css Material parameter for the cyclic stress-strain curve model
in the simplified elastic-plastic analysis (ksi or MPa)
∆σ ij ,k stress tensor range at the point under evaluation for the kth ncss Material parameter for the cyclic stress-strain curve model
cycle (psi or MPa)
σa Total stress amplitude (psi or MPa)
∆S p ,k range of primary plus secondary plus peak equivalent stress
σr Total stress range (psi or MPa)
for the kth cycle (psi or MPa)
ε tr Total strain range
∆Sn ,k range of primary plus secondary equivalent stress for the kth
ε pr Plastic strain range
cycle (psi or MPa)

1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 INTRODUCTION An identical mesh is used for both the heat transfer and
structural models to allow direct mapping of calculated nodal
When a heavy-wall component is subjected to rapid thermal
temperatures.
transients, through-wall thermal gradients can develop.
Additionally, thermal mismatch in structural discontinuity For the heat transfer analysis, time-varying heat transfer
regions such as nozzle junctions will result in additional coefficients are calculated for each transient, based on the
transient thermal stress. Depending on the temperature range expected temperatures and flow rates. Due to the difference in
and speed of the transients, this additional stress can become flow velocity between the shell and nozzle bore, the model is
significant. For this reason, if the transients occur repeatedly, split into two heat transfer regions, as shown in Figure 2, and a
the component fatigue life can be significantly impacted. In separate heat transfer coefficient is applied to each. A constant
some instances, fatigue due to thermal transients may become heat transfer coefficient is applied to the outer surface of the
the controlling factor in the component design; providing the model representative of the combined effect of thermal
most appropriate fatigue evaluation for these cases is critical to insulation and natural convection in air.
avoiding unnecessary design changes and controlling fabrication
costs. The heavy wall nozzle evaluation presented here is an
example of such a case.

DESIGN DATA
The nozzle under evaluation is part of a shell and tube heat
exchanger. The nominal size of the nozzle is NPS 3, or
approximately ¼ the size of the exchanger shell OD (12.75
inches). The nozzle is constructed using an integrally reinforced
forging, and all weld surfaces are inspected and ground smooth.
Both the nozzle and shell are fabricated from 304 stainless steel
material.
A number of design transients are specified for evaluation,
including a full heat-up and cool-down cycle and normal
operational transients. Some of the transients are temperature
changes only, while others consisted of both pressure and FIG. 2 FEM HEAT TRANSFER REGIONS
temperature fluctuations.
A heat transfer analysis is then performed for each design
FINTE ELEMENT ANALYSIS transient, and a temperature distribution obtained for each time
point. These distributions are then mapped onto the structural
In order to evaluate the effects of the various design model, and stress analyses are performed for each transient. The
transients on the nozzle, a quarter-symmetry finite element stress analyses also include internal pressure and nozzle loads
model (FEM) is constructed using the ABAQUS commercial due to external piping; however, the piping loads were found to
FEA software, version 6.9-1. Material properties are taken from not significantly impact the stress range at the fatigue-critical
Section II, Part D of the ASME Code [1]. The model, shown in locations.
Figure 1, is meshed using 3D solid brick elements (DC3D20 for
heat transfer analysis and C3D20R for structural analysis). INITIAL FATIGUE ASSESSMENT
The initial fatigue assessment is performed per the “Elastic
Stress Analysis and Equivalent Stresses” method detailed in
Section VIII, Division 2 of the ASME Code [2], Section 5.5.3.
The time points corresponding to the maximum and minimum
elastic component and equivalent stresses are identified for each
transient, and these points are cross-combined (across all
transient conditions) and the largest resulting equivalent stress
ranges are determined and sorted. This process is performed at
all key locations in the structure (determined by investigation of
contour plots for times throughout the transients and good
engineering practice), including the nozzle inside corner, nozzle
neck at the junction, and shell at the nozzle junction.
Care needs to be taken in the selection of critical time
points, and consideration given to stress ranges that are not only
FIG. 1 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF NOZZLE WITH MESH the largest, but the most damaging. This means that associated
cycles and K e , k effects (which requires consideration of both
total and linearized stress histories) need to be considered such

2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 that a chosen set of ranked time points gives the largest possible exceeded the mS PS = 1.7 S PS limit at some locations (including
overall fatigue usage for a point in the structure. While a critical the nozzle inside radius); therefore, fatigue penalty factors of up
part of any fatigue analysis, this process is not the focus of this to 3.33 were calculated:
paper, and is not discussed in any more detail.
1 1
Prior to entering the fatigue curve, the ranked equivalent K e ,k= = = 3.33
stress ranges are divided by two and have modification factors n 0.3
applied (fatigue penalty factors, fatigue strength reduction The factors are calculated in this way for each loadcase pair
factors (FSRFs), local thermal stress corrections). The result of and location, and are applied to the alternating stresses, S alt , k .
this for each loadcase pair (cycle) is the alternating stress, S alt , k . When the accumulated fatigue damage for all of the loadcase
In this case there are no applicable FSRFs and any K e ,k ' s are pairs is added up, it results in usages of greater than 1.0, with a
applied to the entire alternating stress (as opposed to segregating maximum usage of over 17 (prior to considering any potential
local thermal stress). environmental cycle modification effects). However, prior to
pursuing complex (and costly) design changes that would be
Recall that local thermal stress is almost completely required to reduce the thermal stress ranges, the character of the
restrained thermal expansion that develops when a very small violation should be investigated. In this case, the violating
thickness of a given section is suddenly forced to a different locations appear to be isolated and well-contained by elastic
temperature from the remainder (and majority) of the section. material. This suggests that reduction in K e , k is possible with
Applying K e , k to only the portion of the stress range excluding
elastic-plastic analysis. This process is detailed next.
local thermal stress can be a tremendous benefit for some
problems dominated by fast thermal transients. However, in
nozzle regions, the character of the thermal stress is often ELASTIC-PLASTIC ASSESSMENT AND ALTERNATE
complex and changes with time. For example, while the highest FATIGUE PENALTY FACTOR CALCULATION
fatigue usage might come from the initial thermal shock, which The by far most damaging loadcase pairs (which are due to
can be mitigated with segregation of local thermal stress, some self combination within extremely similar thermal transients)
short time later the character of the stress will change to thermal correspond to K e ,k ' s of 2.75 and 2.34. Fatigue usage without
bending, and still later might develop into a membrane gross
thermal mismatch type of stress if the nozzle takes on a consideration of K e, k is less than 1.0 (the limit for
temperature different from the surrounding shell (often an un- acceptability). As discussed, the simplified calculation for the
intended consequence of thermal sleeves used to protect nozzles fatigue penalty factor can be very conservative if the plasticity
from fast thermal transients). effects are localized. Therefore, an alternate method to calculate
In this case segregation of local thermal stress was pursued, K e, k is provided in paragraph 5.5.3.3 of Section VIII, Division
but the limiting loadcase pairs are actually dominated by thermal 2. K e , k is to be calculated based on elastic-plastic analysis by:
bending stress. For brevity, these calculations aren’t presented,
and the application of K e , k to the entire stress range gives results (∆ε t , k )ep
K e,k = (1)
essentially the same as those that would be obtained with the (∆ε t , k )e
more involved calculation procedures.
Where the total elastic-plastic strain is specified to be:
For the initial assessment, K e , k was calculated per paragraph
 ( ∆e − ∆e ) 2 +
0.5
5.5.3.2(d)(2) as follows: 
 11,k 22, k

 ∆e − ∆ e 
2 ( 22,k 33, k ) +
2
∆S n , k ≤ S PS 
K e,k 1.0
( ∆ε )
t , k ep =
3  ( ∆e − ∆e ) 2 + 
(2)
(1 − n) ∆S n , k  33,k 
K e.= 1.0 + ( − 1) S PS ≤ ∆S n , k ≤ m∆S PS 11, k

n(m − 1) S PS
( ) 
k

1.5 ∆e12 ,k + ∆e23,k + ∆e31,k

2 2 2

1
K e, k ∆S n , k ≥ mS PS
n This calculation method compares the elastic strain that
would be used to enter the fatigue curve to the total (elastic plus
plastic equivalent strain) predicted through elastic-plastic
S PS is defined in Section 5.5.6.1(d) as the larger of 3S
analysis to determine a K e , k . However, through analysis,
(where S is the allowable stress) and twice the yield stress.
Effectively, the fatigue penalty factor is 1.0 for elastic equivalent Equation 2 was found to be in error, which is demonstrated and
stress ranges less than twice yield and increases to a material explained in Annex A. The appropriate equation for calculating
the total (elastic plus plastic) equivalent strain is given by 5.42
dependant maximum value of 1/n. For the stainless steel
and 5.43 of the Code:
material of construction, per Table 5.13, m and n are 1.7 and
0.3, respectively. The maximum equivalent stress range for
certain cycles was found to be as high as 153 ksi, and therefore

3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 The coefficients used are taken from Section VIII, Division
 ( ∆p − ∆p ) 2 +
0.5

 11,k 22, k
 2, Table 3.D.2 and ε offset is taken as 2·10-5. Plastic strain range
 ∆p − ∆ p 
2 ( 22,k 33, k ) +
2
data are evaluated for a series of stresses and input as an
∆ε peq ,k =  (3) isotropic stress-strain curve in the FEA. The curve is plotted in
3  ( ∆p − ∆p ) 2 + 
 33, k 11, k  Figure 3.
 2
(
1.5 ∆p12 ,k + ∆p 23,k + ∆p 31,k
2 2
) 


 ∆S 
∆ε eff ,k  P ,k
=  + ∆ε peq ,k (4)
 E
 y ,k 
And then changing the notation of Equation 1 slightly gives
the consistent calculation of the elastic-plastic fatigue penalty
factor based on analysis:
∆ε eff ,k
K e ,k = (5)
( ∆ε t ,k ) e

For this case study, the analysis focuses on the transient FIG. 3 PLASTIC REGION OF STRESS RANGE-STRAIN
cycle which is the greatest contributor to the fatigue usage RANGE CURVE
(based on the elastic analysis). This transient includes an initial
200°F decrease in process temperature over 30 seconds and a The critical time points for the cycle being analyzed are
200°F increase in process temperature over 30 seconds at the determined during the initial elastic fatigue analysis. The
end of the cycle. These rapid temperature changes are the driver temperature distributions for these points are shown in Figure 4.
for thermal stress during the cycle. The elastic-plastic strains are
calculated for this cycle using both the Twice Yield method and
cycle-by-cycle analysis in order to compare the effects on K e , k .

TWICE YIELD METHOD

The Twice Yield method is described in section 5.5.4.2 of
Section VIII, Division 2. In this method, the elastic-plastic
stress analysis is performed as a single loading step between the
two end points of the cycle (maximum and minimum stress
points). The hysteresis stress range-strain range curve is used
for this analysis, and an effective strain range is calculated from
the stress and plastic strain results. This effective strain range
can then be used to calculate the alternate K e , k .
In this method, the relationship between the total strain
range and stress range is as follows (Section VIII, Division 2, FIG. 4 TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS AT CYCLE END
POINTS
Annex 3.D):

1 Per paragraph 5.5.4.2(d), the temperature field at the cycle

σr  σ  ncss start (minimum) is specified as an initial condition for the
ε=
tr + 2 r  (2) analysis. The distribution at the cycle end (maximum) is then
Ey  2 K css  applied in a single loading step. The equivalent stress range
results are shown in Figure 5, and the plastic strain range results
To implement this model into standard commercial finite are shown in Figure 6.
element software, a yield stress needs to be defined. To this end,
the following is used (see [3]): Using the stress range and strain range results, K e , k is
1 evaluated for the cycle per Method 1 of paragraph 5.5.3.3. The
 σ  ncss effective elastic-plastic strain range is first calculated using
=ε pr 2  r  − 2ε offset (3) equation 5.42:
 2 K css 

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

  ∆S  This is as expected based on the plastic strain results, which
∆ε eff ,1  P ,1  + ∆ε peq ,1
= show that plasticity is limited to the inner surface of the
 E 
 y ,1  component and is constrained by elastic region of the shell and
nozzle. Therefore, the plasticity effects are minimal, and the
fatigue penalty factor on the alternating stress is only about 3%.

CYCLE-BY-CYCLE METHOD
For comparison, the elastic-plastic stress range and strain
range are also evaluated using the cycle-by-cycle analysis
method. The cyclic stress amplitude-strain amplitude curve is
implemented using the Chaboche multiple backstress nonlinear
kinematic model with 4 backstresses (see [4] for further
description of the implementation in Abaqus). The true stress
amplitude-true plastic strain amplitude curves used are shown in
Figure 7.

FIG. 5 EQUIVALENT STRESS RANGE RESULTS FOR TWICE

YIELD METHOD

FIG. 7 TRUE STRESS AMPLITUDE-TRUE STRAIN

AMPLITUDE CURVES

An elastic-plastic analysis of the full transient thermal

loading cycle is then performed. In order to ensure that the
stabilized stress-strain range is used, the loading cycle is
FIG. 6 PLASTIC STRAIN RANGE RESULTS FOR TWICE repeated 10 times, and the stress and strain range from the final
YIELD METHOD
cycle are used to calculate a K e , k value. The stress results for
The analysis is then repeated using a linear elastic material the 10 loading cycles are shown in Figure 8. In this case, there
model, and the stress range results were used to calculate the is little change between the cycles, and the stress-strain range is
elastic strain range using equation 5.41: stabilized by the 10th cycle.
∆S
∆ε el ,1 =P ,1, el
E y ,1

K e, k for the cycle is then the ratio of the elastic-plastic and

elastic strains:
∆ε eff ,1
K e ,1 =
∆ε el ,1

This procedure is repeated for all relevant loadcase pairs

that are identified at the various fatigue critical locations in the
component. The limiting K e , k is found to be 1.03, which is
significantly less than the 2.34 calculated for this cycle using the
simplified method.

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Saddle Lowpoint 10 Cycle Analysis Results
60000 500

40000
450

20000

Temperature (deg. F)
400
Stress (psi)

0
S11
S22 350
-20000 S33
S12
S13
300
-40000 S23
MISES
NT11

-60000 250
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
Time (seconds)

FIG. 8 STRESS RESULTS FOR CYCLE BY CYCLE ANALYSIS FIG. 10 PLASTIC STRAIN RESULTS FOR THE TENTH
CYCLE, CYCLE-BY-CYCLE ANALYSIS
The stress results for the tenth cycle are shown in Figure 9,
The tenth cycle stress and strain range results are used to
and the plastic strain results for the tenth cycle are shown in
Figure 10 (both at the nozzle inside corner, at the saddle “high calculate a K e , k value using the same method (Method 1) as
point”). described previously. The limiting K e , k value is calculated to be
1.04 using this method, which is similar to the 1.03 value
calculated using the Twice-Yield Method.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the elastic-plastic analyses show that for this
case, the induced plasticity is nearly completely contained by the
large elastic region. Using the alternative method to calculate
K e, k (per Section VIII, Division 2, paragraph 5.5.3.3) therefore
results in a significant reduction in the predicted value, from
greater than 2.34 to approximately 1.04. This results in a
decrease in the maximum predicted fatigue usage for the nozzle
junction region from over 17 to 0.86, thus saving a costly re-
design or modification of the exchanger. Note that these results
are also influenced by the cyclic material properties, which
represent nominal rather than minimum strengths, and thus
provide an added immediate benefit over the simplified
FIG. 9 STRESS RESULTS FOR THE TENTH CYCLE, CYCLE-
procedure (which is based on Code minimum properties).
BY-CYCLE ANALYSIS This analysis suggests that when stresses exceed SPS, but the
plastic region is relatively localized such that the elastic portion
of the structure governs the overall behavior, the simplified
method for K e , k is likely to be highly conservative. This can
have a significant impact on the predicted fatigue life of the
component. For this scenario, as in the case study presented
here, using the alternative K e , k calculation method can provide a
major benefit, and the potential design and fabrication savings is
likely well worth the additional analysis cost.

REFERENCES
1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2007, Section II,
“Materials,” Part D, “Properties,” American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York.

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 2. ASME, 2010, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,
Section VIII, Division 2, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York.
3. Kalnins, Arturs, 2008, “Twice-Yield Method for
Assessment of Fatigue Caused by Fast Thermal Transient
According to 2007 Section VIII-Division 2 of ASME
B&PV Code,” PVP2008-61397, pp. 63-71, ASME 2008
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, ASME, New
York.
4. Dewees, D. J., 2010, “Application of Elastic-Plastic Design
Data in the New ASME B&PV Code Section VIII Division
2,” PVP2010-25641, pp. 99-109, ASME 2010 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, ASME, New York.
5. Dowling, N. E., Mechanical Behavior of Materials:
Engineering Methods for Deformation, Fracture, and
Fatigue, 1st Edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
1993.
6. Malvern, L. E., Introduction to the Mechanics of a
Continuous Medium, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 1977.

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 ANNEX A Strain decomposition (total = elastic + plastic) gives:
DEFINITION OF EQUIVALENT OR EFFECTIVE
ELASTIC-PLASTIC STRAIN IN eij =
eije + eijp (or eij =
eije + pij )
SECTION VIII DIVISION 2 PART 5

Equation 5.40 is used to determine a fatigue penalty factor ( = e11e + p11

e11
K e, k ) in the new Div. 2, and specifies a von Mises-type
And assuming a zero initial strain state so that:
equivalent value of the combined elastic plus plastic (“total”)
effective strain:
eij = ∆eij

 ( ∆e − ∆e ) 2 + 
0.5
eije = ∆eije
 11,k 22, k
 pij = ∆pij
 
2 ( ∆e22,k − ∆e33,k ) +
2

( ∆ε ) =  (A.1)
3  ( ∆e − ∆e ) 2 + 
t , k ep
∆e11 = ∆e11e + ∆p11 (A.4)
 33,k 11, k 

 (
1.5 ∆e12 ,k + ∆e23,
2 2
k
+ ∆e31,
2
k
) 
 And noting that the elastic and plastic Poisson’s ratio are
different:
This value differs from the total effective strain given by
Equation 5.42/5.43 for Section 5.5.4 (elastic-plastic fatigue ∆e22
e
=∆e33
e
=−ν ( ∆e11e )
analysis):
∆p22 = −ν p ( ∆p11 )
∆p33 =
 ( ∆p − ∆p ) 2 +
0.5

 11,k 22, k

 ∆p − ∆ p 
2 ( 22,k 33, k ) +
2 Plugging the known 1D plastic strains into Equation A.2
∆ε peq ,k =  (A.2) gives:
3  ( ∆p − ∆p ) 2 + 
 33, k 11, k 
( ∆p − ( −ν ∆p ) )2 +
0.5
  
(
1.5 ∆p12 ,k + ∆p 23,k + ∆p 31,k
2 2 2
)   11 p 11

 ( −ν ∆p ) − ( −ν ∆p ) 2 + 
2 ( 11 )
∆ε peq = p 11 p 
 ∆S   
( ( −ν p ∆p11 ) − ∆p11 ) +
3 2
∆ε eff ,k  P ,k
=  + ∆ε peq ,k (A.3) 
 E
 y ,k   
1.5 ( 0 + 0 + 0 ) 
Equation 5.42 is the correct equation because it reduces to
the uniaxial total strain for the one dimensional case, whereas
( )
0.5
2
2∆p112 (ν p + 1) + 
2
=
3  
Equation 5.40 does not. Equation 5.40 uses the plastic strain
2
form of the von Mises Equation (i.e. ), which is only
3 2
= ∆p11 (ν p + 1)
correct for the plastic strain (because it is deviatoric, i.e. sum of 3
the normal terms is zero). Use of the current Equation 5.40
gives unconservative values of Ke, and for small plastic strains, Because of plastic incompressibility:
can give K e , k ’s below 1. Equation 5.42 can be found in
Dowling [5], for example (Equation 12.24), as a reference. 2 2
∆ε peq = ∆p11 (ν p + 1) = ∆p11 (0.5 + 1)
To illustrate the one dimensional inconsistency, for simple 3 3
uniaxial tension the following is known (for the total strain):
∆ε peq =
∆p11 (A.5)
e11 = e1D
In terms of stress, the only non-zero component is the
applied 1D stress:
e22 = e33 = −ν ( e11 )

e=
12 e=
13 e=
23 0

8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 σ 11 = σ 1D
( )
0.5

2  ( ∆e11 + ∆p11 ) − ( −ν∆e11 + −ν p ∆p11 ) + 

 e e
2

=
3  −ν∆e e + −ν ∆p − ∆e e + ∆p 2 
σ=
22 σ=
33 σ=
12 σ=
13 σ=
23 0
 ( ( 11 p 11 ) ( 11 11 )  )
σ 11 = ∆σ 11
 2 ( ∆e e + ∆p + ν ∆e e + ν ∆p ) 2 
0.5
2
=  11 11 11 p 11 
3
Plugging this result into the equivalent stress equation gives:

(1 + ν ) ∆e11e + (1 + ν p ) ∆p11 

2
=
3 
0.5
( ∆σ 11 − ∆σ 22 )2 + 
 
1 ( ∆σ 22 − ∆σ 33 ) + 
2
1 0.5 Again applying plastic incompressibility:
∆S =   =∆S =  2∆σ 112 
2 ( ∆σ 33 − ∆σ 11 )2 +  2
  2
(
1.5 ∆σ 122 + ∆σ 232 + ∆σ 312 )  ( ∆ε t =
)ep
3
(1 + ν ) ∆e11e + ∆p11

∆S =∆σ 11 (A.6) Using Equation A.7:

2 ∆S
By definition in the 1D case: ( ∆ε t =
)ep (1 + ν ) + ∆p11 (A.9)
3 Ey
∆σ
∆e11e = 11 (A.7)
Ey Comparison of A.9 with A.8 shows it does not match the 1D
solution as it should, and therefore Equation A.1 does not give
Combining Equations A.4 through A.7 gives: consistent results for simple uniaxial loading.
Since K e , k is just a ratio of strains from elastic-plastic and
∆e11 = ∆e11e + ∆p11 elastic analysis, and the elastic analysis strains are unaffected by
this discussion, Equations A.1 and A.3 can be presented as a
∆S ratio for the 1D case (assuming ν = 0.3 ):
∆e=
11 + ∆ε peq (A.8)
Ey
2 ∆S
( ∆ε t )ep (1 + ν ) + ∆p11
Comparing A.8 and A.3 shows the equations are consistent 3 Ey
=
and match for simple 1D loading as they must. ∆ε eff ∆S
+ ∆p11
Ey
Applying this same analysis to Equation A.1 gives the
following:
∆S
0.867 + ∆p11
∆e11 = ∆e11e + ∆p11 Ey
=
∆S
+ ∆p11
∆e22 = ∆e33 = −ν∆e + −ν p ∆p11
e Ey
11

In the limit of no plastic strain, Equation A.1 is 0.867 of the

∆e12 =∆e13 =∆e23 =
0 correct value, and alternately, as plastic strain increases, the
difference between the equations will eventually be negligible.
0.5
( ∆e11 − ∆e22 )2 +  An additional issue is whether Equation 5.43 refers to
 
2 ( ∆e22 − ∆e33 ) +
2
 tensorial or engineering shear strain values. From Malvern (Eq.
( ∆ε t )ep =  6.6.29b of [6]):
3 ( ∆e33 − ∆e11 )2 + 
 
(
1.5 ∆e122 + ∆e232 + ∆e312 ) 

9 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 2 p p 1
dε p = d ε ij d ε ij ε= γ
3 2
=
(dε − d ε 22p ) + ( d ε 22p − d ε 33p ) + ( d ε 33p − d ε11p ) +
p 2 2 2
2
( d ε11p − d ε 22p ) + ( d ε 22p − d ε 33p ) + ( d ε 33p − d ε11p )  +
2 2 2 11

 2
9  dε p =  2 2 2

3 6  1 d γ p  +  1 d γ p  +  1 d γ p  
 23   31   12 
4
( d ε 23p ) + ( d ε 31p ) + ( d ε12p )   2  2  2  
2 2 2

3 

(dε − d ε 22p ) + ( d ε 22p − d ε 33p ) + ( d ε 33p − d ε11p ) +

2 2 2
This equation is in terms of tensorial plastic strains, and is p
11
similar to Equation 5.43 of the Code. Factoring out 2/9 gives: 2
dε p = 3
( d γ 23p ) + ( d γ 31p ) + ( d γ 12p ) 
2 2 2
3

2 
2 ( 11
d ε p − d ε 22p ) + ( d ε 22p − d ε 33p ) + ( d ε 33p − d ε11p ) +
2 2 2

dε =
p

3 6  ( d ε p )2 + ( d ε p )2 + ( d ε p )2  Which matches the Code equation exactly; therefore,

 23 31 12
 Equation 5.43 of the Code is assumed to only apply to
engineering plastic shear strain inputs.
2
 2 4
i.e.   ⋅6 =
 3  3

So according to Malvern, the shear multiplier if tensorial

strains are being used is 6 rather than 1.5 (as appears in Equation
5.43 of the Code). However, if engineering shears are
substituted in:

10 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms