Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Ratching

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 60

Argotine National! Laboratory, with JacsEJiii.*^ sii the >laic% <>t" IDBCBCH»:-»» ;.KI<A hliAw.

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.

This report has been reproduced lr*»j»i lite Iv*


available copy.
Available from lite
Naiionall Technical Intormatton Service
U.S. Department <»J"("oj»nner».v
.^Z^I'mn Roy.ilKw.-al
SpniKlield. V,.\ 22Ehl
Distribution Category:
Magnetic Fusion Energy
(UC-420)

ANL/PPP/TM--253
ANL/FPP/TM-253 DE91 007941

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY


9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439-4801

RATCHETING PROBLEMS FOR ITER

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

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RATCHETING 2

3. MODELS FOR RATCHETING 3

3.1 Ratcheting of a Two-Bar Structure with Strain Hardening... 3

3.2 Ratcheting of an Infinite Thin-Walled Cyinder Under


Internal Pressure and Axisymmetric Temperature
Distribution , 10

3.3 Ratcheting of Double Cantilevered Beam Due to Constant


Pressure and Cycle Applied Displacement 15

3.4 Ratcheting of a Double Cantilevered Beam Due to Lateral


Pressure and Temperature Graolent 21

4. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 29

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 32

REFERENCES 32

APPENDIX A - Analysis of a Two-Bar Structure 34

APPENDIX B - Analysis of a Double Cantilevered Beam Due to Lateral


Pressure and Temperature Gradient 49
11

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.

3.1 Bree diagram for a two-bar structure under a constant primary


and cyclic secondary 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. E, S, P, and R represent
regions of elasticity, shakedown, cyclic plasticity and
ratcheting, respectively 6

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) 7

3.3 Variations of ratcheting strain with cycle for a two-bar structure


under a constant primary and cyclic secondary stresses. Note
that, in contrast to the case of perfect plasticity (ET * 0), the
ratcheting strain rate decreases with cycle when strain-
hardening is included in the analysis 8

3.4 Bree diagram for a two-bar structure under a constant secon-


dary and cyclic primary stresses. The material is assumed
to follow a bilinear stress-strain law with a tangent modulus
Ey/E/n where E is the Young's modulus. Note the absence of
a ratcheting region 9

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

3.7 Bree diagram for a thin tube subjected to constant internal


pressure (primary) and cyclic axisymmetrical thermal
(secondary) loading. This is the Bree dagram that is used
in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section
III 14

3.8 Bree diagram for a thin tube subjected to cyclic internal


pressure (primary) and constant axisymmetrical thermal
(secondary) loading. Note the absence of a ratcheting
region , 16
Ill

LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
Figure No.

3.9 Bree diagram for a thin tube subjected to cyclic internal


pressure (primary) and cyclic axisymmetrica! thermal
(secondary) loading in-phase 17

3.10 Bree diagram for a thin tube subjected to cycle internal


pressure (primary) and cyclic axisymmetrical thermal
(secondary) loading out-of-phase 18

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 19

3.12 Relationship between deflection and bending moment


for a cantilever beam subjected to a end deflection. The
dashed line was used in the ratcheting analysis 22

3.13 Bree diagram for a double cantilever beam subjected to


a constant lateral pressure (primary) and cycle end
displacement (secondary) , 23

3.14 A double cantilever beam is subjected to a uniform lateral


pressure (primary) and a cycle temperature drop through
the thickness (secondary). Typical stress distribution
through the thickness of the beam is shown for a partly
yielded section. A potential ratcheting mechanism follows
by alternate hinge formation at the ends A and at midspan
B. 24

3.15 Typical leading-unloading relationship between normalized


moment and normalized curvature in a beam of rectangular
cross-section. The material is assumed to be etestic-
perfectly plastic. 26

3.16 Bree diagram for a double cantilever beam (rectangular


cross-section) subjected to constant lateral pressure (pri-
mary) and cyclic temperature drop (secondary) through the
thickness of the beam. E, S, and R represent regions of
elasticity, shakedown, and ratcheting strain, respectively... 28

3.17 Bree diagram for a double cantilever beam subjected to


cyclic lateral pressure (primary) and a constant tempera-
ture drop (secondary) through the thickness of the beam.
Note the absence of any ratcheting zone. 30
RATCHETING PROBLEMS FOR ITER
Saurin Majumdar

ABSTRACT

Because of the presence of high cyclic thermal stress, coolant pressure-


induced primary stress, and disruption-induced high cyclic primary stress,
ratcheting of the first wall poses a serious challenge to the designers of ITER
(International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor). Existing design tools such
as the Bree diagram in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessels Code, Section
HI. are not directly applicable to ITER, because of important differences in
geometry and loading modes. Available alternative models for ratcheting are
discussed and new Bree diagrams, that are more relevant for fusion reactor
applications, are proposed.

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.

Ratcheting is generally analyzed by using a Bree diagram [2] which was


originally developed for a steady primary stress with alternating secondary
stress in an infinite thin circular cylinder subjected to a constant internal
pressure and cyclic axisymmetric thermal loading. The design for ratchating in
the ASME Code, Section III is based on the original Bree diagram, because the
assumed loadings are representative of those expected in the fission reactors.
In contrast, the stresses, both primary and secondary, in the ITER first wall are
primarily bending in nature. Further, in ITER, the cyclic primary stresses due to
disruptions are superimposed on a relatively steady thermal stress field, which
is cycled with a much longer time period. These important differences in the
loading modes of ITER from those in fission reactors call into question the
relevance of the ASME Code Bree diagram to ITER.

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.

Although thermal creep is not a problem for ITER, irradiation-induced creep


during technology phase may contribute to the ratcheting problem of the first
wall. However, models for creep ratcheting are not considered in the present
report.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RATCHETING

It is well known that a combination of steady primary stress and cyclic


thermal stress, under certain conditions, can cause incremental accumulation of
plastic strain, i.e., ratcheting, in a structure [2]. The ratcheting mechanism of a
pressurized cylinder subjected to cyclic axisymmetric thermal stress was
investigated by Milier [3], Bree [2], and Burgreen [4]. The Bree diagram was
shown [5] to be significantly different for loading sequences involving steady
thermal cyclic primary, in-phase cyclic thermal and primary, out-of-phase
cyclic thermal and primary stress. In particular, ratcheting was shown not to
occur for the case of a steady thermal and cyclic primary stress, irrespective of
the magnitudes of the thermal stresses. Ratcheting due to repeated secondary
bending stress and steady primary bending stress in a cantilever beam was
considered by Yamashita et al. [6] and the results were applied to the analysis
of ratcheting of bellows. The additional complexity in ratcheting due to thermal
creep has been treated by O'Donnell and Porowski [7], whose approach forms
the basis for the ratcheting analysis recommended in the ASME Code Case
N47.

In many ratcheting analyses of structures subjected to a fixed cyclic loading,


theorems proposed by Frederick and Armstrong [8] are invoked. These
theorems state, that for stable materials, regardless of the initial state of stress in
the structure, a unique steady cyclic stress state (elastic shakedown, alternating
plasticity, or incremental ratcheting) is ultimately achieved after a number of
cycles. In some instances the approach to the steady cyclic state is exponential
in nature so that it may be necessary to analyze only a few cycles before the
stresses converge to a unique steady state. However, it is usually much easier
to derive the steady cyclic state than to analyze ratcheting on a cycle by cycle
basis from the very beginning.

A special corollary to the theorems of Frederick and Armstrong [8] is the


shakedown theorem [9] of perfect plasticity which states that if any self-
equilibrated set of residual stress can be found such that the addition of elastic
stresses results in stresses that nowhere violate the yield criterion, then the
structure will eventually shakedown.

3. MODEL? FOR RATCHETING

In general, three types of ratcheting can occur in structures [6]. In mode I


ratcheting, both the primary and secondary stresses are membrane in nature
without any bending. Such ratcheting can be modeled effectively by a two-bar
structure. In some structures, such as a pressurized thin cylinder, the primary
stress is membrane but the secondary stress is bending (mode II ratcheting).
This is the case for which the original Bree diagrams [2,5] are applicable.
Finally, mode III ratcheting occurs in structures subjected to primary and
secondary stresses that are both bending [6]. This loading is the most relevant
for the US HER design.

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 Ratcheting of a two-bar structure with strain hardening

Consider a two-bar structure subjected to a general cyclical loading of


primary stress (op^O) and thermal stress fa). Generally, the primary stress OJ>
is limited to less (usually the factor of safety * 3/2) than the initial yield strength
of Oyo- The stress-strain law is assumed to be bilinear with a tangent modulus
of E T ( E / E T * n) and following a kinematic hardening law during cyclic loading.
The basic equilibrium equation during a step load incremental is

(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

Aei *•=""*-+ Aepi (3.1.2b)

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

Ao"2 » Aap - 2~ (A^>2 - Ae p i) - Ao"t (3.1.3b)

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

Oy1 + • Oyo + ET (Cp1 +AEp1) (3.1.4a)

Oy1~ * - Oyo + ET (£p1 +A€pi) (3.1.4b)

Oy2+ » Oyo + E T (Cp2 +A£p2) (3.1.4c)

(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.

Constant Primary and Cyclic Secondary Stress

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.

Constant Secondary and Cyclic Primary Stress

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

Figure 3.3 Variations of ratcheting strain with cycle for a two-


bar structure under a constant primary and cyclic secondary stresses. Note that,
in contrast to the case of perfect plasticity (ET «0). the ratcheting strain rate
decreases with cycle when strain-hardening is included in the analysis.
nnnnnnnnnnn Time

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—

shakedown to elastic after initial plastic strain. This is to be expected, because


the thermal stress can be considered as a residual stress field on which the
cyclic primary elastic stresses are imposed and the resulting stresses do not
violate the yield criterion anywhere in the structure. The shakedown theorem
(see Section 2) then guarantees that the structure will ultimately shakedown.

Cyclic Primary and Secondary stresses In-Phasa

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.

3.2 Ratcheting of an Infinite Thin-Walled Cylinder Under Internal


Pressure and Axlsvmmetrlc Temperature Distribution

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.

Constant Primary and Cyclic Secondary Stress

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).

Cyclic Primary and Sflfflnflflry Sjfftsses In—Phaso

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.

Cyclic Primary and Secondary Stresses Out-of-Phase

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

Consider the double cantilevered beam AB (fig. 3.11) subjected to a


uniformly distributed constant lateral pressure p (primary) and cyclic lateral
deflection d (secondary) at end B which is also prevented from rotating. The
ratcheting conditions for this beam for a constant primary stress and cyclic
—16—

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

Figura3.9 Breedagram (or a thin tube subjected to cycle internal pressure


(primary) and cycle axisymmetrical thermal (secondary) loading in-phase.
—18—

*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:

MA(P+Q) + MB (P+Q) = 2Mp (3.3.1)

MA(P+Q-Q) + Me (P+Q-Q)« 2Mp (3.3.2)

6A (P+Q) - 6B (P+Q)« d (3.3.3)

5A (P+Q-Q) - 6B (P+Q-Q) = 0 (3.3.4)

where Mp is the elastically calculated end bending moment due to the


distributed load p, M A and M B are the end bending moments, and 5A and 5B
are the end deflections measured at the midspan (see fig. 3.11). Although the
above equations hold precisely under elastic conditions, they also hold well
approximately in the elastic-plastic regime.

Ratcheting of the beam proceeds as follows. When the imposed deflection


is sufficiently large, the bending moment at end A reaches the collapse moment
(3/2 My, where My is the bending moment at initial yield) before the bending
moment at end B because both the primary and the secondary bending
moments add up at end A. After the end A reaches the collapse moment, the
bending moments at end A and B do not change but the deflections increase
(i.e., a plastic hinge forms at end A) until the relative deflections satisfy eq. 3.3.3.
The bending moments at this point are given by

M A (P+Q) = 3/2 My (3.3.5)

and by using eq. 3.3.1,

M B (P+Q) = 2Mp - 3/2 My (3.3.6)

During unloading, the bending moment at end A decreases elastically, and


the bending moment at end B increases. In this case the following three
situations can arise:

M B (P+Q-Q) < My (3.3.7)

My £ M B (P+Q-Q) < 3/2 My (3.3.8)

M B (P+Q-Q) * 3/2 My (3.3.9)


—21—

If inequality 3.3.7 or 3.3.8 is satisfied, ratcheting cannot occur, but shakedown


occurs because the bending moment at end B does not reach the collapse
moment. On the other hand, if eq. 3.3.9 is satisfied, then a plastic hinge forms at
end B, and the relative deflections increase until eq. 3.3.4 is satisfied. Thus the
plastic bending strains increase at ends A and B alternately in every half cycle
and the lateral deflection at the mkJspan increases with every cycle. A key to
this ratcheting mechanism is the alternate formation of plastic hinges at ends A
andB.

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.

3.4 Ratcheting of a Double Cantilevered Beam Due to LBtfFflf


Pressure and Temperature Gradient

In ITER, the expected source of secondary stress is a temperature gradient


through the first wall. A simplified and idealized geometry and loading for the
first wall of ITER is a double cantilevered beam shown in fig. 3.14 subjected to a
primary loading (either coolant pressure or electromagnetic pressure) of lateral
pressure and a secondary loading due to a temperature gradient.

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^

Figure 3.12 Relationship between deflection and bending moment for a


cantilever beam subjected to a end deflection. The dashed line was used in the
ratcheting analysis [6].
Figure 3.13 Bree diagram for a double cantilever beam subjected to a
constant lateral pressure (primary) and cyclic end displacement (secondary) [6].
—24—

-•Time

Time

Figure 3.14 A double cantilever beam is subjected to a uniform lateral


pressure (primary) and a cyclic temperature drop through the thickness
(secondary). Typical stress distribution through the thickness of the beam is
shown for a partly yielded section. A potential ratcheting mechanism follows by
alternate hinge formation at the ends A and at midspan B.
—25—

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

The resulting loading-unloading curve is shown in fig. 3.15. We use the


following additional notations:

Mp = Elastically calculated bending moment at the edges ^

and Mr = Elastically calculated thermal bending moment« 2<j|

where p = primary pressure loading

I = beam span

El s bending stiffness of the beam

AT = Temperature drop through the thickness of the beam

a = coefficient of thermal expansion


and 2d = beam depth

The details of all the ratchet calculations are given in appendix B.


—26—

Loading Unloading Curve

-2

Figure 3.15 Typical loading-unloading relationship between normalized


moment and normalized curvature in a beam of rectangular cross-section. The
material is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic.
-27—

Constant Primary and Cyclic Secondary Stresses

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)

S1 and S2 are regimes in which shakedown is usually achieved after a


number of cycles. On the other hand, in the regimes S1' and S2\ shakedown is
achieved after one cycle. In SI and S1', there is plasticity only at and near the
beam edge (A), while in S2 and S2\ there is plasticity both at the edges (A) and
the midspan (B) regions. The boundary between the S2 and S2' is given by

Mr = 2 M y (3.4.4)

while the boundary between S1 and SV is given by

3/2 M P + My = 5/2 My (3.4.5)

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

M T = 2 My sin-* - y ^Jjk (3.4.6)

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)

while that between S2 and R2 is given by

(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—

Bree Diagram For Constant Primary


and Cyclic Secondary Stresses

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5


M /M
P y

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.

Constant Secondary and Cyclic Primary Stresses

As shown in the appendix B, this sequence of loading results in either a fully


elastic cycling or at worst shakedown after a number of plastic cycling.
Although some ratcheting strain may accumulate prior to the convergence to
shakedown, steady ratcheting cannot occur. Thus, the Bree diagram for this
case consists of the elastic E and the shakedown S regimes (fig. 3.17) only.

4. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Three types of ratcheting have been discussed. In mode I ratcheting, both


the primary and the secondary stresses are membrane in nature. Bree
diagrams for the two bar struct 3, that models such a behavior, are derived and
presented for various loading sequences and for a linearly strain hardening
material. In mode II ratcheting, the primary stress is membrane but the
secondary stress is bending. This type o* ratcheting occurs typically in a
pressurized thin-wall cylinder subjected io internal pressure and axisymmetric
thermal loading. The Bree diagram in the ASME Boiler and pressure Vessels
Code, Section III is based on analyses of this type of structures. Available Bree
diagrams from the literature are presented for various loading sequences. In
mode ill ratcheting, both the primary and secondary stresses are bending. A
double cantilever beam subjected to constant lateral pressure and cyclic end
displacement experiences ratcheting of this kind. Available Bree diagram from
the literature for this type of loading is presented. Finally, the ratcheting of a
double cantilever beam subjected to lateral pressure and a temperature drop
through the thickness is analyzed for two loading sequences. This loading
condition most closely resembles that in the US ITER design. Many similarities
and dissimilarities exist amongst the Bree diagrams of the various models.

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-

incremental elongation of the structure and generally requires the alternate


tensile yielding and elastic unloading of both bars. Ratcheting of the
pressurized cylinder results in an incremental increase of the tube diameter and
requires the presence of a central core within the thickness of the wall that
yields in tension during both halves of the cycle. Ratcheting of both the bending
models results in cyclic accumulation of large plastic bending strains (i.e.,
formation of hinges) at the edges and of lateral displacements at the midspan.
For the thermally loaded double cantilever beam, ratcheting occurs by the
alternate formation of plastic hinges at the edges and at the midspan. The Bree
diagrams presented for this geometry and loading are most relevant to ITER
design.

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.

Implications for ITER Design

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-

6. T. Yamashita, K. Tsukimori, M. Nakamura, K. twata, and A. Imazu, "A


Simplified Method of Evaluating Ratcheting in Bellows and a Test of Its
Validation", Int. J. of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 42,1990, pp. 263-285.

7. W.J. O'Oonnell and J. Porowski. "Upper Bounds for Accumulated Strains


due to Creep Ratcheting", WRC Bulletin, Vol. 195,1974, pp. 57-62.

8. C O . Frederick and P.J. Armstrong, "Convergent Internal Stresses and


Steady Cyclic States of Stress", J. of Strain Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 2,1966, p. 154.

9. E. Melan .Theorie Statisch Urbestmimter Systeme aus kJeal-Plastischen


Baustoff*, Sitzbar. Akad. Wiss, Wien., Ha, Vol. 147,1938, pp. 73-87.
—34—

APPENDIX A

Analysis of a Two-bar Structure

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:

Constant primary and cyclic thermal stress

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.

Shakedown Regime S1 (EH On the first application of thermal stresses,


yielding of bar 1 occurs when inequality (A1) is violated, i.e.,

Gp + Gt>Cyo (A2a)

Assuming that bar 2 does not yield, plastic strain and stresses are given by

£pi - [op + <h - <*yoJ/(ET + E/2) (A2b)

a^ * ayo + 2[op + at - ay0]/(n+2) (A2c)

and 02 = 2a p - ayo - 2[a p + at - ay0]/(n+2) (A2d)

The requirement that bar 2 remains elastic (i.e., oz £-oyo) gives

a p £ (a t - ayo)/(n+1) (A2e)

On unloading (i.e., removing the thermal loading), if shakedown occurs, both


bars remain elastic,

+ 2[a p + at - ay0]/(n+2) - at (A3a)


-35—

and 02 = 2CTP - Oyo - 2[a p + at - Oy0J/{n+2) + oj (A3b)

Noting that o y i~ = - a y 0 + 2[crp + at - oyo]/(n+2), and o y 2 + = o y 0 ,

the requirements that neither bar yields on unloading give

at £ 2a y 0 (A3c)

2a p + n/(n+1) at < 2a y o (A3d)

Eqs. A2a, A2e, and A3d define the shakedown regime S1 (El) (inequality A3c
is automatically satisfied).

Shakedpwn Regime S2 On first application of thermal loading both bars


yield, if in addition to satisfying inequality A2a, inequality A2e is violated, i.e.,

op < (o\ - ay0)/(n+1) (A4a)

The plastic strains and stresses in the bars are given by

epi = Gp/Ej + (at - a y0 )/(Ej+E) (A4b)

eP2 « ap/Er - (at - ayo)/(ET+E) (A4c)

a i = a p + a y 0 + (at - ay0)/(n+1) (A4d)

C2 = a p - a y o - (at - ay0)/(n+1) (A4e)

On unloading, if shakedown occurs, both bars remain elastic, and

ai = a p + a y 0 + (at - ay0)/(n+1) -at (A5a)

and 02 = a p - a y 0 - (at - ay0)/(n+1) +at (A5b)

Noting that, a y t" = - a y 0 + a p + (at - ayo)/(n+1) and a y 2 + = a y o + a p - (at -


<jyo)/{n+1), the requirement that both bars remain elastic gives

a t < 2a y 0 (A5c)

Eqs. A4a and A5c define the shakedown regime S2.

Cyclic Plasticity Regime P2 If, on unloading after initial loading in which


both bars yield, inequality A5c is violated, i.e.,

at > 2a y 0 (A6a)

then both bars experience reversed yielding. The plastic strain increments of
the bars during unloading are given by

«(at - 20yoV(ET+E) (A6b)

By considering an additional loading and unloading cycle it can be shown that


bars 1 and 2 execute repetitive stress-strain hysteresis loops of width given by
Eq. A6b at mean strains ± [opfEj + OV(ET+E)]/2, respectively and without any
additional ratcheting. This regime of reversed plasticity P2 is defined by Eqs.
A2aand A4a

Ratcheting Reoime R2 Tensile ratcheting usually occurs by the alternate


tensile yielding of the two bars during successive half cycles. During the first
half cycle, the incremental plastic strain in bar 1 is given by eqs. 6b and that in
bar 2 is zero.

Ae(pi - Slot + op - oyo]/(2ET + E) (A7a)

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

op - 2 ct/n + (3n+4)/[n(n+1)] Oyo ^ 0 (A8f)

Inequality A8f is automatically satisfied if inequality A3c is satisfied.


—37—

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)

Eqs. A9a and A9b reduce to

+ 2 op - 2 - 2/(n+2) ejg - 2/(n+2) E^" 1 * (A9C)

jf,? = 2(c t + 2 Op - 2 oyo)/(n+2) - 2/(n+2) Cp^~1} - 2/(n+2) ep^ 2 * (A9d)

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

or 2a p - ayo - E T Ae^/(1-m2) s -oyo + E T [Ae£J • m/(1-m2) A e g

which on using eqs. A7a and A8c can be shown to reduce to

(Aiic)
The ratcheting regime R2 is defined by inequatties A8a and A11c.
—39—

Ratcheting and cyclic plasticity regime R2 and P2 K the inequality A11c is


violated, i.e.,

at > 2 Oy0 (At 2a)

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

which can be solved for K as

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)

Similarly considering the unloading half cycle 2i,

^ p ? ) (A13d)

Subtracting eq. A13d from eq. A13c.

O (A13e)
—40—

To determine the value of the strain increments, the stress in bar 1 can be
written as

g <A14a)

From eqs. A13a and M4a

However,

Therefore,

p + 1 ) [ < * - 2oyoV(ET+E) (A14b)

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.

Constant thermal and cyclic primary stress

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.

Elastic Regime E2 This is the same as in the previous case. Equation


A1 holds.

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)

Ot + 0p > Cyo (A15b)

On the first application of the primary load,


—41—

G\ « at + Op HE Aepi/2

which on solving gives

Aepi - [a, + Op - oVo]/(ET + E/2) (A16a)

0*1 » Oyo + 2 [ot + Op - cfyo]/(n+2) (A16b)

G2 « 2o p - Oyo - 2 fa + Op - oy0]/(n+2) (A16c)

In order to ensure that bar 2 remains elastic (i.e., 02 2t -oyo)

Op > (at - oyo)/(n+1) (A16d)

On unloading, if shakedown occurs, both bars remain elastic

ai = - a p + ayo + 2 [at + a p - Oyo]/(n+2)

and 02 = Op - ayo - 2 [at + a p - ay0]/(n+2)

Noting that a y i~=-ayo + 2 [at + a p - ayo]/(n+2) and cy2~ « -ay©,

Op < 20yo

and 2ot - n Op < 2o y0

both of which are automatically satisfied. Shakedown regime S1 (E1) is


defined by inequalities A15a and A15b.

Shakedown regime S2 If the bars yield during initial thermal loading, i.e.,

at > ayo, (A17a)

Aep1 = (a t - ayo )/(E T + E) = - AEp2 (A17b)

01 = Oy0 + (at - ayo )/(n+1) • - 0 2 (3.1.21c)

On the first application of primary loading (c p < Oyo) bar 1 yields but bar 2 does
not.

at * ayo + Op + (oj - Oyo )/(n+1) - EAepi/2

« a y 0 + (at - ayo V(n+1) +

which on solving gives


—42—

a p / (ET+E/2) (A16a)

(ot - <Jyo V(n+1) + 2op/(n+2) (A18b)

O2«2op-ai (A18c)

On unloading, if shakedown occurs,

0 1 » Oyo + (ot - ayo V(n+1) - nop/(n+2) (A19a)

02 « -at (A19b)

Bar 2 does not yield in compression if the following holds

-[cyo + (at - oyo Mn+1) - nop/(n+2)] * -°Yo - (<* - °yo V(n+1)

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.

Primary and thermal stresses in—phase

Elastic regime E2 This is the same as in the previous case. Equation A1


holds.

Shakedown regime S1 fEi) On the first application of primary and thermal


stresses, yielding of bar 1 occurs when inequality A1 is violated, i.e..

Op + at > Oyo (A20a)

Assuming that bar 2 does not yield, plastic strain and stresses are given by

ot-oyo]/(ET + E/2) <A20b)

+ 2[o p + ot - Oy0]/(n+2) (A20c)

and C2s2op-Oyo-2[op + ot-Oyo]/(n+2) (A20d)

The requirement that bar 2 remains elastic (i.e., 02 2 -oyo) gives

op*(c t -Oyo)/(n+1) (A20e)

On unloading, if shakedown occurs, both bars remain elastic,

01 • Oyo + 2[o p + ot - Oyol/(n+2) - ot -Op (A21a)


—43—

and ofe = 2CTP - ayo - 2[<yp + at - OyoP(n+2) + <h - op (A21 b)

Noting that o y i~ • -Oyo + 2[<rp + ot - Oyo]/(n+2), and Oy2+ * Oyo.

the requirements that neither bar yields on unloading give

Op + at £ 2a y 0 (A21c)

a p + at £ 2(1 +1 /n)oyo (A21d)

Eqs. A20a, A20e, and A21c define the shakedown regime S1 (E1)
(inequality A21d is automatically satisfied).

Shakedown Regime S2 On first application of primary and thermal loading


both bars yield, if in addition to satisfying inequality A20a, inequality A20e is
violated, i.e.,

Op < (at - ay0)/(n+1) (A22a)

The plastic strains and stresses in the bars are given by

epi = Op/ET + (ot - ayo)/(ET+E) (A22b)

ep2 = ap/ET-(at-ayo)/(E T +E) (A22c)

ai = a p + ayo + (at - a y0 )/(n+1) (A22d)

a2 = a p - Oy0 - (at - Oy0)/(n+1) (A22e)

On unloading, if shakedown occurs, both bars remain elastic, and

01 = op + Oy0 + (at - Oy0)/(n+1) - a t - <*p (A23a)

and 02 = Op - o y o - (at - a yo )/(n+1) +at - a p (A23b)

Noting that, o y r = - o y 0 + o p + (ot - ay0)/(n+1) and Oy2+ = Oyo + a- - (at -


ay0)/(n+1), the requirement that both bars remain elastic gives

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.,

c p + at > 2<Ty0 (A24a)

The stress in bar 1 is given by

a i « Oyo + 2 [on + op - Oyo]/(n+2) - o p - at -Etepi/2

» - ayo + Ey Aepi +2[op + at -Oyo]/(n+2)

which on solving gives

A£pi « -2[Op + c t - 2oyo]/(2ET + E) (A24b)

G I = -n/(n+2) a y o (A24c)

C2 « n/(n+2) ayo < a y 0 (A24d)

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)

Proceeding as before, on unloading,

Aepi = -2[o p + o t - 2oyO]/(2ET + E) (A25b)

ai = -ayo + a p + (at - ayo)/(n+1) - 2[a p + at - 2ayo]/(n+2) (A25c)

az - - a i (A25d)

Bar 2 does not yield provided,

02 ^ Oyo + a p - (at - Cyo)/(n+1)

i.e., at - (n+1 )a p ^ 2a y 0 (A25e)

On reloading,

2[op + at - 2oyo]/(2ET + E) (A26a)


—45—

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.

Cyclic plasticity regime P2 If inequality A25e is violated, i.e.,

at - (n+1 )op > 2oy0 (A27a)

both bars 1 and 2 execute cyclic plasticity with

AEP1 = Gp/Ei + (at - 2ayo)/(E+E-r) (A27b)

AeP2 as -ap/Ej + (at - 2ayo)/(E+Ei) (A27c)

a i = at - (n-1)a p - n/(n+1)ay0 on loading (A27d)

<T1 = -n/(n+1)ayo on unloading (A27e)

02 - (n+1 )a p - at + n/(n+1)ay0 on loading (A27f)

o 2 = n/(n+1)ayo on unloading (A27g)

There is no regime of ratcheting.

Primary and thermal stresses out—of—phase

Elastic regime E2 Both bars remain elastic if

at < a y o (A28a)

Shakedown regime S2 Both bars yield by thermal stress when inequality


A28a is violated, i.e.,

at > a y o (A29a)

Aepi = (at - a y o )/(ET + E) = - Aep2 (A29b)

ai = a y 0 + (at - a y 0 )/(n+1) = -02 (A29c)

On unloading the thermal loading, there is no reversed yielding if

at £ 2a y 0 (A30a)

a-i = ayo + (at - a y 0 )/(n+1) - at = -02 (A30b)


On loading with primary stress, if neither bar yields in tension

01 * Oyo + (ot - Oyo )/(n+1) - 0 t + Op (A31a)

02 » -Oyo - (ot - o-yo )/(n M) + at + a p :£ ay© - (ot - Oyo V(n+1) (A31 b)

Thus shakedown occurs if

at + Op £ 2<Tyo (A31c)

Inequalities A29a and A31c define the shakedown regime S2.

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 - ayo )/(n+1)» -02 (A32c)

On unloading the thermal loading, there is no reversed yielding if

at £ 2oyo (A33a)

o™ - a y o + (ot - ayo )/(n+1) - at - - a ^ (A33b)

If on application of the primary stress, inequality A31c is violated, i.e.,

at + a p > 2ayo (A34a)

bar 2 yields in tension and

O2 » -Oyo - (Of - Cyo )/(n+1) + O\ + Op - EA£p2/2

- ayo - (at - ayo )/(n+1) + E j Aep2

which on solving gives

Aejg « 2(at +a p - 2ayo V(2ET+E) (A34b)

02 « a y 0 - (ax - <Jyo )/(n+1) + 2(a» +a p - 2oyo V(n+2) (A34c)

^ m 2a p - O2 (A34d)
—47—

The condition that bar 1 does not yield in tension requires

at - (n+1 )a p + na y 0 £ 0 (A34e)

which is satisfied for c p £ a y 0 .

On unloading of primary stress, neither bar yields provided inequality A30a


is satisfied and

- -n[o t - (n+1 )a p + nay0]/[(n+1 )(n+2)] (A35a)

^-o™ (A35b)

E) (A35c)

£P2 = - f a - oyo )/(ET + E) + 2(a, +a p - 2a y 0 )/(2ET+E) (A35d)

On subsequent cycling, bar 2 executes reversed plastic strain cycling of


range given by eq. A34b and bar 1 attains shakedown. Cyclic plastic regime P1
(S1) is defined by inequalities A33a and A34a.

Cyclic plasticity reoime P2 If inequality A33a is violated, i.e.,

at > 2a y 0 (A36a)

on unloading the thermal load, both bars undergo reversed yielding with

AeP2 = -Ae p i = (at - 2a yo )/(Ei+E) (A36b>

a2 = - a i = n/(n+1 )a y 0 (A36c)

On applying the primary stress, bar 2 yields in tension further

Ae p2 = 2ap/(2ET + E) (A37a)

Ae p i = 0 (A37b)

a2 = 2a(j/(n+2)+ n/(n+1) o y 0 (A37c)

and o-\ ** 2a p - 02 (A37d)

On removing the primary stress, there is no yielding,


O2 » -n/(n+2) op + n/(n+1) oyo (A38a)

oi«-o2 (A38b)

On applying the thermal loading, both bars yield

(o t -2oyo)/(E T +E) (A39a)

t - 2oyo)/(ET+E) - 2op/(2ET +E) (A39b)

F,-Oy0)/(n+1) (A39c)

(A39d)

epi - (at - oyo )/(E T + E) (A39e)

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

Analysis of a Double Cantilevered Beam Due to I ataral Pressure and


Temperature Gradient

The basic equations needed for the analysis of this structure are given in
section 3.4.

Constant Primary and Cyclic Secondary Stresses

In this case, the pressure is maintained constant and the temperature drop
through the beam is cycled between AT and 0.

Elastic regime E

The elastic cycling regime is given by the following equation

where My is defined in eq. 3.4.1c.


First Loading half cycle Apply the primary and secondary loading. Denoting
the value of (3=PA at the end A,

(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.

-j- = 2 i - v '-SM^'-PA-J (B3)

Solving eqs. B2a and B2b for p,

1 - y) <B4>

The equation for transverse displacement w of the beam is given by

STrfdr ^ " f i L «nthe plastic region (B5a)


—50—

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

Thus, to ensure M B ^ -My (with M T « 0 ) ,

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

< B1Oa >

and Aw| B = g | i [ M j - Mr*] (B10b)

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.

Unloading of thermal load First, consider removal of Mr after formation of a


plastic hinge at A with Mp satisfying eq. B8. The removal of M T can be
absorbed elastically and shakedown will occur in one cycle if MB(OW) - M T £ -
My, i.e.,
—52—

ff inequality B12 is violated, the midspan yields with M B < -My, and the total
bending moment distribution in the beam is given by

M(x). M n + f M p f i - ^ ] — ¥#3-02) (B13)

where MB--^*(3-PB2)

Yielding (M£-My) will extend from x«X2 to x«l/2 where

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

Remo val of Mr can be absorbed elasticaliy from x«0 to x-xj if

AM(x) s-2My

or pB 2 ^2-^p (B15a)

satisfaction of which also ensures x ^ xi. The inequality B15a is automatically


satisfied if

The equations for transverse displacement increments are given by

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.

If Tjj £ <3 »the removal of Mr can be absorbed elasticalfy and shakedown


will occur in one cycle if

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)

provided PB' ^ PB (B19b)

where PB is given in eq. B11c. The equation for the incremental displacement is
then given by

Solving the above equation, as before, and using eq. B11a,

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

Instead of analyzing for ratcheting by conducting transient cycle by cycle


stress analyses, a steady ratcheting cycle can be shown to exist for each
applied loading. The theorems of Frederick and Armstrong [8] then guarantees
that the structure will ultimately converge to this cyclic state.

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)

If this range of moment is to be accommodated elastically, it must be less than


or equal to 2My, which implies that

ME 2 (B23)
My 3

If inequality B23 is satisfied, the equation for the displacement increment in


each loading half of the cycle is

El d^Aw 3MV-3/2MP-MTR . . . - .
toraMx tB24)
My dx2 My

which on solving gives

M T R 3MV-3/2MP
(B25
My * My '

For ratcheting to occur, Mr > MyR.

If inequality B23 is violated, i.e.,

£<2_
(BZ6
My ' 3 >
the sections will experience uniform cyclic plasticity, i.e.,

3My - f M P - My(3-p2) (B27a)

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

which on solving gives

My * V3MP

For ratcheting to occur Mr >

Constant secondary and cyclic primary stresses

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.,

M^-4 < B30 >


Assuming that the inequality B30 is satisfied, the equation for the transverse
displacement is then given by

El d2Aw AM . „
=rr~ for all x

Solving the above equation gives

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.

You might also like