Ratching
Ratching
Ratching
is
owned hy I he l"n;icd S i m o izm enimem, am! operated In TSu" Vn:\ eMi) n'S'ChicHui
under the provisions of a awiiract with ilie D t !'I
DISCLAIMER-
This repon was prepared as an account of work sponsored hy an agency of
the United Slates Government. Wither the United States Government nor
any agency thereof, nur any of theiremployees. makes any »v arranty. express
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for tfie accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product. «»r pro-
cess disclosed, or represents lhai its use would not infringe privately ouned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orothcru. ise. does not nec-
essarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by
the United States Government or any agency thereof. Theviewsand opinions
of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or rcilecl those of the
United Slates Government or any agency thereof.
ANL/PPP/TM--253
ANL/FPP/TM-253 DE91 007941
S. Majumdar
Materials and Components Technology Division
January 1991
Work supported by
Office of Fusion Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38
MASTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Easts.
ABSTRACT 1
1. INTRODUCTION 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 32
REFERENCES 32
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
3.5 Bree diagram for the two-bar structure under cyclic primary
and cycle secondary stresses in-phase. The material is
assumed to follow a bilinear stress-strain law with a tangent
modulus E T « E/n where E is the Young's modulus. Note
the absence of a ratcheting region 11
3.6 Bree diagram for the two-bar structure under cyclic primary
and cyclic secondary stresses out-of-phase. The material
is assumed to follow a bilinear assumed stress-strain law
with a tangent modulus E T * E/n where E is the Young's
modulus. Note the absence of a ratcheting region 12
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
Figure No.
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
The maximum cyclic thermal stress in the first wall of the ITER will very likely
exceed the 3S m limit of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessels Code, Section
III; as a result, cyclic plastic strains will occur in the first wall [1]. Although the
primary stresses due to coolant pressure are small, large cyclic primary stresses
will be induced in the first wall by the electromagnetic pressure loadings
created during plasma disruptions [1]. The electromagnetic loadings during
disruptions are fast transients occurring over a time scale of tens of ms, whereas
the thermal stress cycles (due to plasma on-off cycles) are repeated over a time
scale of minutes. The additional thermal stresses due to the plasma disruption
itself are restricted to a thin skin of the first wall and are not important for
ratcheting of the first wall. The combined thermal and electromagnetic loadings
can potentially create a ratcheting problem for the ITER first wall, which is the
subject of study of the present report.
The purpose of the present report is to explore various models that are
available for analyzing the incremental ratcheting strain problem in structures
subjected to cyclic loading in a temperature domain where thermal creep is
negligible. A model, that more closely simulates ITER loadings, has been
analyzed in details. On the basis of these analyses, new Bree diagrams are
proposed that should be useful for ratcheting analyses of ITER.
Of the three models, the two-bar structure is the simplest to analyze. Results
are presented not only for elastic-perfectly plastic but also for materials obeying
a simple linear strain hardening law. Mode II ratcheting has been hrstoricaNy
used in the ratcheting analyses of fission reactor components and forms the
basis of the Bree diagram in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
Section III. Recently, mode III ratcheting was used in the analysis of bellows [6].
The model used was a double cantilever beam subjected to a uniform lateral
pressure and transverse displacement at one support. However, a more
relevant loading for ITER is a uniform lateral pressure and a temperature drop
through the thickness of the beam. This loading case has been analyzed in
details in this report and the results are used to construct new Bree diagrams
that should be more pertinent for ITER design.
(3.1.1)
where Acn, A02. and Ao p are the incremental stresses in bars 1 and 2 and the
incremental applied primary stress, respectively. Assuming that the
temperature of bar 1 is constant at T and that of bar 2 varies between T and
T+AT, the strain compatibility between bars 1 and 2 during a load increment
step give
(3.1.2a)
where
ACF9
&ZZ * p + O AT + A£p2 (3.1.2c)
Acpi and Aep2 are the incremental plastic strains in bars 1 and 2, respectively,
and E and a are the Young's modulus and the coefficient of thermal expansion ,
respectively. Solving for the incremental stresses,
£
Aai = A<7p + 2 (A£p2 — Aepi) + Aat (3.1.3a)
and
where
Aap=±ap (3.1.3c)
Aat»±ot*±«EaAT (3.1.3d)
The ± sign implies using + when load is applied and - when it is removed. The
total stresses in the bars are 01 + A01 and 02 + A02. respectively. Yielding is
determined by whether the stresses in the bars exceed the tensile or
compressive yield limits, given by
(3.1.4d)
—5—
where the superscripts + and - denote tensile and compressive yield limits,
respectively and e p i and zpz are the accumulated plastic strains in the two bars
up to but excluding the current step.
Because of the simplicity of the above basic equations, they can be solved
for the various sequences of primary and secondary stresses, beginning with
the first cycle. For ratcheting to occur, both bars must alternately (not
simultaneously) yield in tension during one half of the cycle and remain elastic
during the other half. The case of perfect plasticity is obtained by taking the limit
n-*». The details are given in appendix A.
The Bree diagram for this case is shown in fig. 3.1. The zones El and E2
define loading zones for which one bar and both bars behave elastically,
respectively. Similarly, S1 and S2 define zones in which one bar and both bars
shakedown after initial plastic strain, respectively. In zone P2. both bars
undergo cyclic plastic strain with open hysteresis loops. Finally in zone R2,
both bars experience ratcheting at a diminishing rate. For perfect plasticity
without strain hardening, i.e., n = EJEj = ~ (or E j - 0 ) , fig. 3.1 reduces to fig. 3.2.
Note that the ratcheting zone is expanded and the cycle plastic zone is reduced
significantly. Also, there is a basic difference in the ratcheting behavior of the
two-bar structure in the presence and absence of strain hardening, as shown in
fig. 3.3. The symbols in fig. 3.3 represent computed results based on discrete
cycles whereas the solid curves represent approximations in which the cycle is
treated as a continuous variable resulting in a differential equation (see eq.
A10a in appendix A) which can be sorveo in terms of an exponential function.
Note that, In contrast to the case of perfect plasticity (Err * 0), the ratcheting
strain rate diminishes with cycles when strain hardening is included in the
analysis. Further, the maximum ratcheting strain decreases with increasing
strain hardening. There is a qualitative difference in the ratcheting behavior in
the zone R2 and the zone R2 (P2) in fig. 3.1. In zone R2, the ratcheting strain
approaches a limiting value asymptotically with increasing cycles. On the other
hand, in zone R2 (P2), a maximum ratcheting strain is achieved after a finite
number of cycles following which the two bars execute cyclic plastic hysteresis
loops without accumulating any additional ratcheting strain.
The Bree diagram for this case, which is the same for both with and without
strain hardening, is shown in fig. 3.4. Note that, in contrast to the case in which
the primary stress is constant and the secondary stress is cyclic, there is no
loading combination for which either ratcheting (R) or alternating plastic strain
cycles (P) is possible. In all cases, the strain cycles are either elastic or
Time
nnnnnnnnnnn
Figure 3.1 Bree diagram for a two-bar structure under a constant primary
and cyclic secondary stresses. The material is assumed to follow a biinear
stress-strain law with a tangent modulus E T » E/n where E is the Young's
modulus. E. S,P, and R represent regions of elasticity, shakedown, cyclic
plasticity, and ratcheting, respectively.
—7—
Tm*
nnnnnnnnnnn Tim*
ZoneP
Plastic Strain Range * _ !
ZoneR
2 ( 2 2 C
Ratcheting Strain per cycle » W V
ZoneS
Shakedown after initial plastic strain
ZoneE
Elastic cycling
Figure 3.2 Bree diagram for a two-bar structure under a constant primary
and cyclic secondary stresses. The material is assumed to be elastic-perfectly
plastic (i.e. E T *0).
Ratcheting of a 2-Bar Structure with
Strain Hardening in Region R2
Exponential Model
S
55
o
I
u 20 40 SO 80 100 120
Tme
Zones S1 and S2
Shakedown after initial plastic strain in one bar and both bars, respectively
Zones E1
Elastic cycling of one bar and both bars, respectively
Figure 3.4 Bree diagram for a two-bar structure under a constant secondaiy
and cyclic primary stresses. The material is assumed to follow a bilinear stress-
strain law with a tangent modulus E T * E/n where E is the Young's modulus.
Note the absence of a ratcheting region.
-10—
The Bree diagram for the structure with strain hardening is shown in fig. 3.5.
In this case, the structure can experience elastic cycling, elastic cycling after
shakedown, or alternating plastic cycling of either one or both bars. As in the
previous case, there is no loading combination for which ratcheting is possible.
In the case of perfect plasticity (n • «•), the zone S1 (Pi) disappears, the zones
S2 and P2 shrink to two lines on the thermal stress axis, and there is no zone
for ratcheting.
Cyclic Primary and Secondary Stresses Ouf—gf-Ph/*sA
The Bree diagram for this case, which is the same for both with and without
strain hardening, is shown in fig. 3.6. In contrast to the previous case, a large
zone of loading combination exists for which both bars execute alternating
plastic cycles (P2) even without strain hardening. However, as before, there is
no zone for ratcheting, with or without strain hardening.
This is the geometry for which the original Bree diagram [2] was developed
for the case of perfect plasticity with constant primary and cyclic secondary
stresses. In order to obtain closed-form analytical results, the problem was
solved by considering it to be uniaxial in the hoop direction, ignoring the biaxial
nature of the actual stress field. However, Bree [2] showed that if only tensile
yielding occurred during each half cycle, the criterion for onset of ratcheting is
the same for both uniaxial and biaxial loadings. Ng and Moreton [5] later
extended the uniaxial analysis for other loading conditions. The maximum
thermal stress (at), calculated by an elastic analysis, is tensile at the outer
(cooler) surface and compressive at the inner (hotter) surface and is given by
at:=
2(1^vT (3-2.1)
where v is the Poisson's ratio. Equilibrium of the primary stresses (op) requires
—11—
°P
nnnnnnnnnnn Tim*
nnn
Regimes P1 and 92
Cyclic plastic strain in one bar and both bars, respectively
Regimes S1 and S2
Shakedown after initial plastic strain in one bar and both bars, respectively
Regimes E 1 a n d E 2
Elastic cycling in one bar and both bars, respectively
Figure 3.5 Bree diagram for the two-bar structure under cycfic primary and
cyclic secondary stresses in-phase. The material is assumed to follow a
bilinear stress-strain law with a tangent modulus E T « E/n where E is the
Young's modulus. Note the absence of a ratcheting region.
—12—
nnnnnnnnnnn Time
nnnnnnnnnn Time
Regimes P1 and P2
Cyclic plastic strain in one bar and both bars, respectively
Regimes S1 and S2
Shakedown after initial plastic strain in one bar and both bars, respectively
Regime E2
Elastic cycling in both bars
Figure 3.6 Bree diagram for the two-bar structure under cyclic primary and
cyclic secondary stresses out-of-priase. The material is assumed to follow a
bilinear stress-strain law with a tangent modulus E T - E/n where E is the
Young's modulus. Note the absence of a ratcheting region.
o p t * Jo(x)dx (3.2.2)
-H2
where t is the thickness of the wall. During each half cycle, two types of stress
distributions can occur depending on whether the inside (hotter) surface of the
tube does (case 2) or does not (case 1) yield. The problem is then solved by
invoking the theorem of Frederick and Armstrong [8] guaranteeing the existence
of a unique steady cyclic stress state. Depending on which of the two types of
stress distribution is present, the various deformation responses are determined
by comparing the strain increments during a generic nth and n+1th half cycles
[5]. The initial transient cycles necessary prior to achieving the steady cyclic
stress state are not analyzed.
The Bree diagram for this case is shown in fig. 3.7. Two types of ratcheting
are possible for this loading sequence. In both cases, there is a central core of
thickness 2a that yields in tension in both halves of each cycle. For case 1 (R1),
a region of thickness t/2+a extending from the outer cooler surface yields in
tension while the rest of the thickness remains elastic during one half of the
cycle, whereas a region of same thickness extending from the inner surface
yields in tension while the rest of the thickness remains elastic during the other
half of the cycle. There is no cyclic plastic strain in the tube. The ratcheting
strain per cycle for this case is given by
-0p] (3.2.3)
For case 2 <R2), a thin zone at the inner hot surface also yields in compression
during one half of the cycle and a similar zone at the outer surface also yields in
compression during the other half of the cycle, so that both surfaces experience
cyclic plastic strains. The ratcheting strain per cycle for this case is given by
A N " E Lay at
The critical condition for ratcheting to occur is the existence of a central core of
thickness 2a that yields in tension during both halves of the cycle. The
boundaries of the ratcheting regime are obtained by setting a«0. For alternating
plastic cycling (P2) to occur, the mid-surface of the cylinder wall remains
elastic, but the elastically computed thermal stress ranges in the two extreme
surfaces exceed 2av. The width of the hysteresis loop at a distance x from the
mid-surface is given by
o
Figure 3.7 Bree diagram for a thin tube subjected to constant internal
pressure (primary) and cyclic axisymmetrical thermal (secondary) loading. This
is the Bree diagram that is used in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
Section III.
—15—
l -c] (3.2.5)
where c ~^r >s the distance from the mid-surface to the edge of the reversed
plastic zone. The two shakedown zones are characterized by initial yielding in
tension (S1) and initial yielding both in tension and compression (S2).
Constant Secondary and Cyclic Primary Stress
Bree diagram for this case is shown in fig. 3.8. As in the case of the two bar
structure, there are only three zones of elastic and shakedown behavior. As
mentioned earlier, this behavior is a direct consequence of the shakedown
theorem of plasticity. There are no regions of alternating plasticity or ratcheting.
The two shakedown zones are characterized by initial yielding in tension (SI)
and initial yielding both in tension and compression (S2).
The Bree diagram for this case is shown in fig. 3.9. For ratcheting (R1 and
R2) to occur, the tensile yielded zone during the loaded half of the cycle must
overlap with that during the unloaded half of the cycle. For all other types of
behavior this overlap length must be zero. However, in R1 ratcheting there is
cyclic plastic strain at the outer surface and in R2 ratcheting there is cycle
plastic strains at both surfaces. PI type behavior occurs when the outer surface
experiences cyclic plasticity but the inner (hotter) surface does not. P2 type
behavior entails yielding of both surfaces but the loop widths are not equal.
The Bree diagram for this case is shown in fig. 3.10. The general approach
for obtaining the various loading zones is the same as in the case of in-phase
cycling. In R1 ratcheting there is cyclic plastic strain at the inner surface and in
R2 ratcheting there is cyclic plastic strains at both surfaces. PI type behavior
occurs when the inner (hotter) surface experiences cyclic plasticity but the outer
surface does not. P2 type behavior eniails yielding of both surfaces but the ioop
widths are not equal.
3.3 Ratcheting of a Double Cantilavwd Beam Due to Conitanf
Pressure and Cyclic Applied Displacement
Figure 3.8 Brea diagram for a thin tube subjected to cyclic internal pressure
(primary) and constant axisymmetrical thermal (secondary) loading. Note the
absence of a ratcheting region.
%
\n n n
*T *1 n n n
*t n n n
"t n n r
Figure 3.10 Bree diagram for a thin tube subjected to cyclic internal
pressure (primary) and cyclic axisymmetrical thermal (secondary) loading out-
of-phase.
-19—
L / 2
* — >
ri i
M.
0 B
d or ^ k
Time
Figure 3.11 Double cantilever model under constant lateral pressure (primary)
and cyclic transverse displacement (secondary) at end B. This model was used
for analyzing ratcheting in bellows [6]
—20—
secondary stress were derived by Yamash'rta et al. [6] for the case of perfect
plasticity without strain hardening. By using the notations P+Q to denote
application of the primary plus secondary loads and P+Q-Q to denote the
subsequent removal of the secondary load, the following equations can be
derived for the bending moments and deflections when all parts of the beam are
elastic:
Using the simplified moment-deflection curve shown in figure 3.12 and eqs.
3.3.1-3.3.4, the combinations of primary and secondary loads that satisfy eqs.
3.3.7-3.3.9 can be derived and the results are shown in the Bree diagram fig.
3.13. The regions E, S i , and S2 satisfy eq. 3.3.7, the regions Si'and S2' satisfy
eq. 3.3.8, and the regions R1 and R2 satisfy eq. 3.3.9. In E, the structure
remains elastic. In Si and S2, the structure shakes down to elastic or plastic
cycling after the initial half cycle depending on whether Y=ca/Sy is less than or
greater than 2, where aa is the elastically calculated secondary stress and Sy is
the yield stress. In the regions Ri and R2, plastic ratcheting occurs. In the
regions Si' and S2', the structure shakes down rapidly to elastic (Si* for Y<2) or
plastic cycling (Si' for Y>2 and S2) after a few cycles of ratcheting. The
difference between Si (Si' and R1) and S2 (S2' and R2) lies only in whether
yielding occurs at one end or at both ends simultaneously during the initial
loading. The beam model was used by Yamashita et at. [6] to analyze
ratcheting of bellows. This model has not been analyzed for sequences of
loading other than that of a constant primary and cyclic secondary stresses.
For a perfectly plastic material and rectangular solid section (width »b and
depth = 2d) of the beam, the initial moment-curvature relationship at any
section is as follows:
—22—
|My
B (c)
(a)
My A
/
(b)
(a)/
/ (c)
K•5^
-•Time
Time
where M y and Ky are the bending moment and curvature at initial yield, i.e.,
| (3.4.1c)
y j f (3.4.1d)
and E is the Young's Modulus, I (« 2/3 bd3) is the moment of inertia, and ±0d is
the distance from the neutral axis to the elastic-plastic boundary of the beam.
At initial yield JJ =1 and when p «0, the section forms a plastic hinge with a
collapse moment given by
M L = | My (3.4.ie)
On unloading after loading beyond initial yield, the relationship between the
incremental moment and incremental curvature is obtained by replacing a y with
2a y , i.e.,
H^-0-02) (3.4.2a)
AK 2
I = beam span
-2
For ratcheting to occur, the end A and midspan B must alternately form a
plastic hinge on application and removal of the thermal loading, respectively
(fig. 3.14). The Bree diagram (bold lines) is shown in fig. 3.16. The elastic
regime E is defined by
Mp + MT<My (3.4.3)
Mr = 2 M y (3.4.4)
The boundary between the S1 (SV) and the S2 (S2*) regime (shown by the
short dashed line in fig. 3.16) is approximately given by
In the regime R1, ratcheting occurs with plasticity confined to the plastic
hinges A and B (fig. 3.14) with the rest of the beam responding elastically. In
R2, ratcheting occurs with accompanied cyclic plasticity in the rest of the beam.
In both ratcheting regimes, steady state ratcheting is achieved after a number of
cycles. The boundary between S1 and R1 is given by
(3.4.7)
(3.4.8)
The boundary between R1 and R2 has not been determined for points other
than that defined by M P = My/3 and M-p= nMy. Figure 3.16 also shows (long
dashed lines) the loading required for the formation of a plastic hinge at the
edge A on first loading. Note that these lines can fall on either side of the
steady state ratcheting line. In most cases, a hinge does not form at the
midspan B on the first removal of the thermal load, but requires a number of
—28—
Figure 3.16 Bree diagram for a double cantilever beam (rectangular cross-
section) subjected to constant lateral pressure (primary) and cyclic temperature
drop (secondary) through the thickness of the beam. E, S. and R represent
regions of elasticity, shakedown, and ratcheting strain, respectively.
—29—
cycles.
The loading sequence has a major influence on the Bree diagram. Usually,
ratcheting is worst for the case of constant primary and cyclic secondary
stresses for all models. On the other hand, ratcheting does not occur for the
case of constant secondary and cyclic primary stresses. For in-phase and out-
of-phase cycling, ratcheting is possible for the pressurized cylinder but not for
the two bar structure.
The elastic cycling regimes for all the models are the same. The
shakedown regimes for the structures under bending generally exceed those of
the membrane loaded structures. The mechanisms for ratcheting are vastly
different for the various models. In the two-bar model, ratcheting leads to an
—30—
Time
Time
u,
»p
Figure 3.17 Bree diagram for a double cantilever beam subjected to cyclic
lateral pressure (primary) and a constant temperature drop (secondary) through
the thickness of the beam. Note the absence of any ratcheting zone.
—31-
Because of the complexity, effects of strain hardening was analyzed for the
two bar model only. However, the results should be qualitatively applicable to
other models as well. Strain hardening limits the accumulation of ratcheting
strain by diminishing the ratchet rate with each cycle. The higher the strain
hardening the lower the final ratchet strain. In a similar fashion, the effects of
biaxiality of the stress field, which are ignored in all models, should reduce the
amount of ratcheting strain.
As mentioned earlier, unless the maximum surface heat flux on the ITER first
wall is reduced significantly, the 3S m limit (which is nominally the same as 2cry
limit) of the ASME code for the range of primary plus secondary stress intensity
will be exceeded. This raises the possibility of potential ratcheting of the ITER
first wall particularly because, in addition to the cyclic thermal stresses, large
cyclic primary stresses will be induced in the first wall during plasma
disruptions. One aspect of ITER design that is helpful in minimizing the
ratcheting problem is the low primary stress due to coolant pressure in all
designs.
Both the primary and the secondary stresses in the first wall of the US ITER
design are primarily bending in nature. Therefore, the Bree diagrams for the
double cantilever model proposed in this report should be more applicable to
ITER than the Bree diagram of the ASME code, which was developed for a
constant primary membrane stress and cyclic bending thermal stress. Results
may be unnecessarily pessimistic if the ASME code Bree diagram is used to
analyze for ratcheting under combined thermal and disruption-induced cyclic
primary stresses. As discussed earlier, all models show that ratcheting is not
possible if a cyclic primary stress is imposed on a steady secondary stress and,
as far as the disruption-induced primary stresses are concerned, the thermal
stresses induced by surface heat flux are essentially steady. However, this
does not fully alleviate the ratcheting problem, because the application of a
—32—
single large primary stress cycle on a steady secondary stress field can create a
significant ratcheting strain increment even though such increments are not
sustained if the primary stress cycles were to be applied repeatedly. Thus, each
time a plasma disruption occurs, the associated cyclic primary stress may cause
an incremental ratchet strain if the favorable residual stress field created by the
earlier plasma disruption is erased by the intervening thermal stress cycles (as
they eventually must, as required by the theorems of Frederick and Armstrong).
This also demonstrates the advantage of having a longer bum time of the
plasma from a ratcheting viewpoint, because the longer the plasma bum time,
the fewer the thermal stress cycles between successive disruptions with
consequent delay in the erasure of the favorable residual stress distribution. In
a truly steady-state plasma, steady ratcheting due to disruptions would not
occur. However, since the ITER plasma is pulsed and not steady-state,
detailed ratcheting analysis of the first wall will be needed to address this
aspect of the problem.
Finally, whereas the thermal stress field in the ITER first wall is equi-biaxial,
all ratcheting models are analyzed for a uniaxial stress state and thus
overestimate the ratcheting strains. Thus, ratcheting analyses that account for
the stress field biaxiality of ITER should be conducted.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Mr. Axel Schrradt-Pkitka of Institut fuer
Reaktorwerkstoffe Forschungszentrum JueGch GmbH (KFA) for providing the
Brae-diagram for the two-bar model using perfect plasticity.
References
1. US Contribution for the ITER Blanket - Summer 1990 Session, ITER-TN-
BL-5-0-4, Garching, FRG, November, 1990.
2. 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. of Strain Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 3,1967, pp. 226-238.
3. D.R. Miller, Thermal Stress Ratchet Mechanism in Pressure Vessels",
Trans. ASME, J. of Basic Engineering, Vol. 81,1959, pp. 190-196.
4. D. Burgreen, "Structural Growth Induced by Thermal CycKng",Trans.
ASME, J. of Basic Engineering, Vol. 90,1968, pp. 469-475.
5. H.W. Ng and D.N. Moreton, "Bree Diagrams for Alternative Loading
Sequences", in Engineering Approaches to High Temperature Design. Vol. 2 in
the Series Recent Advances in Creep and Fracture of Engineering Materials
and Structures. Eds. B. Wilshire and D.R.J. Owen, Pineridge Press, U.K., 1983.
—33-
APPENDIX A
The basic equations for the two-bar structure subjected to primary and
secondary stresses are given in Section 3.1. Using these equations, the
various possible cyclic deformation behavior of the two-bar structure can be
derived as follows:
In this case, the initial stresses in the two bars are OJ> and the incremental
value, Aop, for each subsequent step is zero.
Elastic Regime E2 On the application of the first thermal loading with Act *
at, both bars remain elastic provided
01 = a p + at < a y o (A1)
which defines the elastic cycling limit (regime E2) for the two bar structure.
Gp + Gt>Cyo (A2a)
Assuming that bar 2 does not yield, plastic strain and stresses are given by
a p £ (a t - ayo)/(n+1) (A2e)
at £ 2a y 0 (A3c)
Eqs. A2a, A2e, and A3d define the shakedown regime S1 (El) (inequality A3c
is automatically satisfied).
a t < 2a y 0 (A5c)
at > 2a y 0 (A6a)
then both bars experience reversed yielding. The plastic strain increments of
the bars during unloading are given by
AejJJ-0 (A7b)
On unloading, i.e., during the second half cycle, bar 2 yields in tension
provided inequality A3d is violated, i.e.,
2oy0 (A8a)
The incremental plastic strains and stresses in bars 1 and 2 are given by
Aej^-0 <A8b)
H} 4V (A8c)
(A8d)
(A8e)
Noting that o y i~ * -oy 0 4- E T A e ^ , the condition that bar 1 does not yield in the
second half cycle requires
Noting that the thermal loading is on in every odd half cycle and off every
even half cycle, consider the loading half cycle 2i+1 (i«1 Z ) during which the
second bar does not yield. The plastic strain increment in bar 1 is given by
- 2/(n+2) (A9a)
fn a similar fashion considering the unloading half cycle 2i during which bar 2
yields,
1>
? » 2(of E) - 2/(n+2) (A9b)
Noting that
similarly
J2M)
Subtracting eq. A9d from eq. A9c, rearranging, and defining m « n/(n+2),
44
(A9e)
Similarly,
Equations A9e and A9f show that the ratcheting rate decreases with each cycle.
The following simple differential equation can be written replacing both
equations if the number of cycles are large and can be treated as a continuous
variable.
O <AiOa)
Integrating Eq. A10a and using the initial conditionsep-0 and *j§f
(AiOb)
Alternatively, the total accumulated plastic strains in bars 1 and 2 after N+1
cycles are given by
jJ + m /(1-m*) [ 1 -m ^ ^ (A11a)
and {f 2 N ) ( ) ^
» p-n^i-m*)*-^ (Aiib)
In order to ensure that bar 1 does not yield during unloading in cycle S , it is
sufficient to require that the limiting stresses and strains (as N-»«) satisfy the
following inequality
(Aiic)
The ratcheting regime R2 is defined by inequatties A8a and A11c.
—39—
initially the two bars will ratchet as in regime R1. However, after a certain
number (K+1) of cycles, there wili be reversed yielding and the stress-strain
hysteresis loops will open up. The onset of reversed yielding can be obtained
from the following equation:
yo
1-m 2 K .(2)1
or Zap-ffyo l
P2
K nf °t - y
"I
K m
" 2 ln(m) \jMSi - (1 +m)(a y0 yp)J
Considering a loading half cycle 2i+1 for i>K,
(A13a)
(A13b)
Adding eqs A13a and A13b and using equilibrium equation 3.1.1
(A13C)
^ p ? ) (A13d)
O (A13e)
—40—
To determine the value of the strain increments, the stress in bar 1 can be
written as
g <A14a)
However,
Therefore,
Thus after K+1 cycles, there is no further ratcheting and the two bars execute
out-of-phase stress-strain hysteresis loops of width given by eq. A14b. This
regime of ratcheting and cyclic plasticity, R2 and P2, is defined by inequaBties
A2eandA12a.
In this case, the initial stresses in bars 1 and 2 are due to thermal loading
and the incremental value, Ao\, for each subsequent step is zero.
Shakedown Regime SI (E1) In this case o* is still less than Oyo but the
sum of primary and secondary stress exceed Oyo, i.e.,
at £ oyo (A15a)
G\ « at + Op HE Aepi/2
Op < 20yo
Shakedown regime S2 If the bars yield during initial thermal loading, i.e.,
On the first application of primary loading (c p < Oyo) bar 1 yields but bar 2 does
not.
a p / (ET+E/2) (A16a)
O2«2op-ai (A18c)
02 « -at (A19b)
i.e., op £ 0
which is always satisfied. Thus there is neither any reversed yielding nor any
ratcheting of either bar 1 or bar 2.
Assuming that bar 2 does not yield, plastic strain and stresses are given by
Op + at £ 2a y 0 (A21c)
Eqs. A20a, A20e, and A21c define the shakedown regime S1 (E1)
(inequality A21d is automatically satisfied).
Op + at < 2a y o (A23c)
at-op<2ayo (A23d)
Eqs. A22a and A23c define the shakedown regime S2. Inequality A23d is
automatically satisfied.
Cyclic plasticity regime P1 (E1) If on first loading, the bar 1 yields but bar 2
does not, i.e., inequalities A1 and A20e are satisfied, on unloading, bar 1 yields
provided inequality A21c is violated, i.e.,
G I = -n/(n+2) a y o (A24c)
Ae p2 - 0 (A24e)
Thus bar 1 has a cyclic plastic strain range, given by eq. A24b, at zero mean
and bar 2 remains elastic. The domain P1 (El) is defined by inequalities A20e
and A24a.
Cyclic plasticity regime PI fS1t If on first loading both bars 1 and 2 yield,
i.e., inequalities A20a and A22a are satisfied, on unloading, bar 1 yields
provided inequality A23c is violated, i.e.,
Op + o\ > 2o y 0 (A25a)
az - - a i (A25d)
On reloading,
Aep2 = 0 (A26b)
and ai and 02 are given by eqs. A22d and A22e, showing that bar 2 achieves
shakedown while bar 1 executes cyclic plasticity. The boundary of regime PI
(S1) is defined by inequalities A22a, A25a, and A25e.
at < a y o (A28a)
at > a y o (A29a)
at £ 2a y 0 (A30a)
at + Op £ 2<Tyo (A31c)
Cyclic plasticity regime P1 (S1) Both bars yield by thermal stress when
inequality A26a is violated, i.e.,
at > a y 0 (A32a)
(1
E)« - Ae$ (A32b)
at £ 2oyo (A33a)
^ m 2a p - O2 (A34d)
—47—
at - (n+1 )a p + na y 0 £ 0 (A34e)
^-o™ (A35b)
E) (A35c)
at > 2a y 0 (A36a)
on unloading the thermal load, both bars undergo reversed yielding with
a2 = - a i = n/(n+1 )a y 0 (A36c)
Ae p2 = 2ap/(2ET + E) (A37a)
Ae p i = 0 (A37b)
oi«-o2 (A38b)
F,-Oy0)/(n+1) (A39c)
(A39d)
ep2«-(at-Oyo)/(ET + E) (A390
Thus bars 1 and 2 execute out-of-phase cyclic plastic strain cycles with plastic
strain ranges given by eqs. A39a and A39b, respectively. The plastic cycling
regime P2 is defined by inequality A36a.
APPENDIX B
The basic equations needed for the analysis of this structure are given in
section 3.4.
In this case, the pressure is maintained constant and the temperature drop
through the beam is cycled between AT and 0.
Elastic regime E
(B2a)
X
M(x) = M A - 6M P [j - 1§] = ^ 3 - 0 2 ) (B2b)
Denoting by x=xi, the location of the elastic-plastic boundary, i.e., M(x-i) = My,
and M(x) < My for l/2>x>x-i.
1 - y) <B4>
and
ijt&PmW~VL jn thee!astic
Solving eq. B5a between x»0 and x « x i , and eq. B5b between x«xi and x»l/2,
satisfying the boundary conditions w»dw/dx*0 at x»0 and dw/dx«0 at x*l/2, and
continuity conditions for w and dw/dx at x»xi,
sin-1 sin~ 1
(B6)
For given values of Mp and My. eq B6 can be solved for PA. or alternatively, for
given values of Mp and PA. Mr can be computed from eq. B6. For the midspan
bending moment M B to be just equal to +My, xi »1/2 or P A 2 - 1-3Mp/My, which
on substitution into eq. B6 implies that for the midspan bending moment to be
£+My the following must be satisfied,
(B7)
To determine the conditions for which the midspan does not yield in the
opposite sense, i.e., M B ^ -My.
Substituting the above in eq. B6 and solving for Mp and PA assuming M T > 0 , the
onset of midspan yielding in the reversed sense, i.e., Me»-*My when
and P A * 0.284
Since Mr induces positive bending moment, in order for the midspan to remain
elastic, i.e., -My ^ M B ^ My, it is sufficient if the following condition is satisfied:
lB8>
For a given M R (satisfying B8), a plastic hinge will form at end A, i.e., P A * O .
when the thermal loading Mr * Mr .where (from eq. B6)
Vi-My/3M P
<B9>
For M T > M T * . the bending moments in the beam will not change (recall that for a
simply supported beam, the stress due to M r is zero) while the hinge at A will
rotate and the midspan (B) displacement will increase by
If -j^p < 3 , the whole beam yields (i.e., M>My) and a plastic hinge is formed at A
when Mr = M T \ where
The bending moment and the value of p at the midspan B are given by
MB=|(My-MP)
and PB
As before, for M-pMr* , the bending moments in the beam will not change while
the end A will rotate and the midspan displacement will increase by amounts
given by eqs. B10a-b.
ff inequality B12 is violated, the midspan yields with M B < -My, and the total
bending moment distribution in the beam is given by
where MB--^*(3-PB2)
Noting that during the loading half of the cycle the bending moments were given
by eq. B2b, the incremental bending moment is (putting PA - 0 ) .
AM (x) - - ^ 6 - ^ 2 ) + 1Mp
AM(x) s-2My
or pB 2 ^2-^p (B15a)
El d2Aw AM(x) Mr . -, ^ m^ .
i ^ - d x 2 - * ~ M 7 + M7 forO^xz (B16a)
. El
and
i^
where M(x)ou is given by eq. B2b (with P A - 0 and MA«3/2My). These set of
equations can be solved (P can be obtained from eq. B13) as before to give
—53—
(BIT,
Note that PB -» 0 does not lead to a finite limiting value of Mr, showing that a
plastic hinge will not form at the midspan in one load-unload cycle. However,
with continued cycling, a hinge will ultimately form at the midspan and the beam
will settle to a steady behavior, as will be discussed later.
j j j £2 (B18)
If inequality B18 is violated, then on removal of the thermal load, the whole
beam will undergo a uniform increment of reversed plastic moment represented
by PB' such that
| ( P B ) (Bi9a)
where PB is given in eq. B11c. The equation for the incremental displacement is
then given by
A comparison of B11c and B21 shows that inequality B19b is violated, thus
indicating that the plastic zone at the section B will penetrate deeper into the
section on removal of the thermal loading, i.e., I MB1 > MB. With every cycle the
plastic zone will penetrate deeper until a hinge forms at B on every unloading.
Ratcheting regime R
For ratcheting to occur, the end A and midspan B must alternately form a
plastic hinge on application and removal of the thermal loading, respectively.
The alternating bending moment in each section of the beam is then given by
AM-c3My-§MP (B22)
ME 2 (B23)
My 3
El d^Aw 3MV-3/2MP-MTR . . . - .
toraMx tB24)
My dx2 My
M T R 3MV-3/2MP
(B25
My * My '
£<2_
(BZ6
My ' 3 >
the sections will experience uniform cyclic plasticity, i.e.,
where p is the same for all sections of the beam. The equationforthe
displacement increment during a loading half cycle is then given by
—55—
My <JX2 * p My
My * V3MP
After the steady conditions are achieved, during the period of the cycle when
the primary stresses are off, the beam must be at a constant moment M~Mi.
When the primary stresses are turned on, at worst, the end A could be at the
collapse moment while the moment at midspan is less than the collapse
moment. The increment in moment is given by
AM 3 6MP|(x\
T ( x f l Mi <B29>
1 J~ [T) J-My
w^~TOrlfjj-w
The above change in moment (both during loading and unloading) can be
accommodated elastically if the change at end A (x*0) is less than 2My, i.e.,
El d2Aw AM . „
=rr~ for all x
Ml _3_Mp
My " 2 My
Substituting the above into inequality B30, it can be concluded that the beam
will shakedown if the following is satisfied
Mp£2My (B33)
which is always the case. It is also evident that, during the period when the
primary stresses are off, the beam is at a uniform moment that is less than the
collapse moment. Thus, for this loading condition ratcheting cannot occur.