Proceedings of the 2002 ASME PVP Conference

August 4-8, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

THE EUROPEAN APPROACH TO DESIGN BY ANALYSIS

Josef. L. Zeman
Institute for Pressure Vessel & Plant Technology
Vienna University of Technology
Gusshausstr. 30/329, A-1040, Vienna, Austria
Email: j.zeman+e329@tuwien.ac.at

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the background of a new approach to
check the admissibility of pressure vessels via the Direct Route
(DR) to Design by Analysis (DBA), and the various design
checks required, in general and in detail. Emphasis is on the
various tools and procedures used in applications, and on
typical applications.
INTRODUCTION
Within the European Union, the coming into force of
common national laws in the pressure equipment field, based
on the so-called Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) [1],
paralleled by a serious need for corresponding complementary
Harmonised Standards – i. e. standards which provide for
presumption of conformity with the so-called Essential Safety
Requirements (ESR) of the PED –, created a unique chance
and challenge:
The chance for a new approach to Design by Analysis
(DBA), using all the knowledge in engineering mechanics –
theoretical as well as practical –, all the experience with
numerical methods and the commercially available hard- and
software used in the simulation of the behaviour of structures
under various actions.
Work started in 1992, the first sketch of a draft dates
October 1992, the draft went through (informal) enquiries
repeatedly. The final public enquiry in 1999 was supported by
an EU-research project, which resulted in proposals for
changes and in a handbook [2], with numerous examples, input
listings, etc. The revised version of the draft standard [3] will
be subject to the Formal Vote from March 21 to April 21, 2002.
GENERAL
The draft standard is restricted to sufficiently ductile
materials – A5 ≥ 14%, KCV ≥ 27 J.
The most advanced approach in the draft standard, the so-
called Direct Route to Design by Analysis (DBA-DR), dealt
with in a normative annex, Annex B, is intended
- as an alternative to the "usual" Design by Formulae
(DBF) route,
- as a complement to the DBF-route for:
- cases not covered by DBF,
- cases involving superposition of actions, e. g. wind,
snow, earthquake,
- cases where DBA is required, e. g. by authorities in
potential major hazard, or environmentally sensitive
situations,
- exceptional cases where manufacturing tolerances are
exceeded.
This route, DBA-DR, deals with various failure modes
directly, in so-called Design Checks (DC).
These design checks are named after the main failure
mode they deal with. Some design checks deal also with other
failure modes, other than the main, name-giving one.
Design checks are formulated in the form of so-called
Principles, of design goals, allowing for different procedures to
assess the fulfillment of the principles' goals. Some of these
procedures are specified, as so-called Application Rules –
generally recognized rules which follow the Principle and
satisfy its requirements. It is permissible to use alternative
design rules, different from the Application Rules given,
provided that it is shown that the alternative rule accords with
the corresponding Principle and is at least equivalent with
regard to resistance, serviceability and durability.
To allow for flexibility, for easier future adaptations, a
partial safety factor format is used in this Direct Route to
DBA:
- Characteristic values of actions shall be multiplied by
partial safety factors of actions to obtain the so-called
design values of actions,

1 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

 - (Relevant) characteristic values of material parameters,
used in the design models, shall be divided by
corresponding partial safety factors (of resistances, of
material parameters) to obtain their design values.
Partial safety factors of actions depend on the considered
design check and the actions, and also whether an action acts
favourably or non-favourably.
Partial safety factors of resistances depend on the
considered design check and the material.
The partial safety factors are calibrated with regard to
results for simple geometries with the formulae and the
nominal design stresses in the main body of the standard, the
DBF-route; and they are calibrated with regard to the European
civil engineering standards, thus adapted to standards of
environmental actions – wind, snow, earthquake.
There is one important exception:
For materials with a ratio of the specified yield strength, or
proof strength, at calculation temperature and the specified
ultimate strength at ambient temperature above 0.625, the
Direct Route to DBA allows for thinner walls – the safety
factor of 2.4 against the ultimate strength at ambient
temperature, used in the determination of nominal design
stresses in the DBF route, is replaced by a less stringent
requirement.
DESIGN CHECKS, GENERAL
Design Checks are investigations of a component's safety
under the influence of actions with respect to specified limit
states.
Design checks shall be performed for various Load Cases
– actions, or combination of coincident actions, classified into
normal operating load cases, special load cases and exceptional
load cases. Actions shall be specified by their characteristic
values which are representative of the variation of the action
that can occur under reasonably foreseeable conditions.
For the determination of the effects of (design) actions
specific (physical) models – the Design Models – shall be used,
and these depend on the design check considered.
Design Models are specified in detail in the next chapter.
In the design models first-order-theory, i. e. geometrically
linear kinematic relations and equilibrium conditions for the
undeformed structure, shall be used, except for the two
following cases.
- Instability design checks shall be based on non-linear
geometric relations – equilibrium conditions for the
deformed structure and non-linear kinematic relations;
second-order theory – linear kinematic relations and
equilibrium conditions for the deformed structure – may
be used, if it can be shown to be accurate enough
- In checks on structures and for actions where
deformation decreases the action carrying capacity, i. e.
where deformation has an unfavourable (weakening)
effect, geometrically non-linear effects shall be taken
into account in gross plastic deformation and fatigue
checks. Examples are nozzles in cylindrical shells under
transverse moment, nozzles in cylindrical shells under
axial compressive forces, bends under closing moments,
cylindrical shells with out-of-roundness, or with
peaking, under external pressure.
In the draft standard five design checks are specified:
- Gross Plastic Deformation Design Check (GPD-DC)
- Progressive Plastic Deformation Design Check (PD-
DC)
- Instability Design Check (I-DC)
- Fatigue Design Check (F-DC)
- Static Equilibrium Design Check (SE-DC).
All of these shall be considered. Some of these design
checks may not be relevant, and in some cases it may be
necessary to investigate additional failure modes, like leakages
to the environment.
In general, each design check comprises various load
cases.
The design checks shall be carried out for the following
(classes) of load cases, where relevant:
- Normal Operating Load Cases, where normal
conditions apply
- Special Load Cases, where conditions for testing,
construction, erection or repair apply
- Exceptional Load Cases, (voluntary) load cases where
only general requirements are given, details left to the
discretion of the parties concerned
For each design check all relevant load cases shall be
considered.
Of the five design checks prescribed as a minimum in the
draft standard, the two most interesting ones are discussed in
the following: GPD-DC and PD-DC.
The third prescribed one – the I-DC – incorporates no
unusual, no new ideas, but specifies several useful application
rules. Additional hints are given in [2].
The third prescribed one – the F-DC – refers to the "usual"
fatigue calculation specified in the main body of the draft
standard. Of course, results of linear-elastic calculations
obtained in the course of design checks can be used, as input
values.
The fifth prescribed one – the SE-DC – encompasses the
usual checks against overturning and rigid body displacement.
GROSS PLASTIC DEFORMATION DESIGN CHECKS
The geometry of the Design Models used in these checks
shall agree with the actual design in all non-local details.
Nominal values shall be used for individual dimensions with
the exception of thicknesses, for which analysis thicknesses
shall be used, i. e. effective thicknesses available to resist
actions in corroded condition – nominal thickness minus
allowance for material tolerances, allowance for possible
thinning during manufacture, and corrosion allowance.
In case of sub-models or part-models, the models should
encompass all the necessary parts of the structure to include
possible elastic follow-up effects.
The constitutive law used in the Design Model shall be
- linear-elastic ideal-plastic with
2 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 - Tresca's yield condition (maximum shear stress
condition) and associated flow rule
- specified strength parameters (design yield strength)
RM d = RM / γ R , e. g. like the ones given in Table
B.8.2 for normal operating load cases.
Mises' yield condition (maximum distortion energy
condition) may be used, but then the design strength parameter
(design yield strength) shall be multiplied by 3 / 2 .
The Principle reads:
For each load case, the design value of the action, or the
combination of actions, with specified partial safety factors for
actions, e. g. like the ones in Table B.8.1 for normal operating
load cases, shall be carried by the design model with, for
proportional increase of all considered actions and a stress-
free initial state, a maximum absolute value of the principal
structural strains less than
- 5% in normal operating load cases, and
- 7% in testing load cases;
in exceptional load cases this strain limitation requirement
does not apply.
The structural strain is the strain in a stress/strain-
concentration-free model of the structure, i. e. the strain
determined in an idealized model which takes into account the
(real) geometry of the structure with the exception of local
details which cause only local stress/strain concentrations,
which affect the stress or strain distribution only through a
fraction of the thickness.
Some models, e. g. FEM models with shell or beam
elements, may give structural strains directly. Otherwise,
models with lesser strain concentrations than the real ones may
be used, or quadratic extrapolation into the critical point – the
hot-spot – with pivot points in distances from the hot-spot of
0.4, 0.9 and 1.4 times the thickness at the hot-spot, see [3],
B.7.6, and [2].
This strain limitation reflects the failure mode Local
Excessive Strain, but, of course, renders limit analysis results
(and theorems) non-usable, at least in general – the GPD-DC is
not a limit analysis check (in the strict sense).
Usage of structural strains eliminates problems with
models with possible singularities, allows for simpler models,
and gives a clearly defined break-up point for the simulation.
PROGRESSIVE PLASTIC DEFORMATION DESIGN
CHECKS
For the geometry of the Design Models used in these
checks the same specification as for those in the GPD-Design
Checks apply, i. e. the very same model geometry may be used.
The constitutive law used in the Design Model shall be
- linear-elastic ideal-plastic with
- Mises' yield condition (maximum distortion energy
condition) and associated flow rule
- specified design material strength parameters (design
yield strengths), e. g. for steels other than austenitic
ones the design yield strength is given by the specified
yield strength, or the 0.2% - proof strength, at a
temperature not less than 0.75t c max + 0.25t c min , where
t c max and t c min are highest and lowest calculation
temperatures at the position under consideration during
the whole action cycle
The partial safety factors – for actions and for material
parameters – are equal to unity.
The Principle reads:
For all relevant load cases, on repeated application of
specified action cycles to the design models progressive plastic
deformation shall not occur.
Two important application rules are specified:
- Shakedown (SD) rule:
The principle is fulfilled, if the equivalent stress/strain-
concentration-free model shakes down to linear-elastic
behaviour under the action cycles considered.
- Technical Adaptation rule:
The principle is fulfilled if it can be shown that the
maximum absolute value of the principal structural
strains is not exceeding 5% after the application of the
number of cycles specified for the considered load case.
If the number is not specified, then a reasonable
number, but not less than 500, shall be assumed.
PROBLEMS
In the Gross Plastic Deformation Design Check Tresca's
yield condition in the constitutive law of the Design Model
poses a serious problem for usual soft- and hardware:
Most of the commercially available software packages do
provide for evaluation of equivalent stresses for Tresca's yield
hypothesis, but do not provide for elasto-plastic calculations
with Tresca's yield condition.
The Ansys distributor CADFEM had a complementary
sub-routine "General Multisurface Plasticity" adapted for us,
giving us the opportunity to use the principle fully. But the
routine is, on presently used computers very slow, and it
requires great care to avoid stability problems.
On the other hand, numerous simulations have shown that
in most cases, especially in cases involving more complicated
structures, the usage of Mises' yield condition with reduced
design yield strength does render quite acceptable results, at a
fraction of CPU-time: Given the possibility (by the equilibrium
conditions, in the interior and at the boundaries) the stress
distribution (in the model) will converge to an optimal one with
regard to the yield condition used – the decrease of the design
yield strength will be partially compensated by the gain due to
the less conservative Mises' yield condition.
In the Progressive Plastic Deformation Design Check the
application of the principle itself does lead to problems: There
is no generally valid theorem for progressive plastic
deformation available. Usage of the Technical Adaptation
Application Rule is cumbersome and time consuming.
For the Shakedown Application Rule two simple, but
effective, tools are available:
- Melan’s Shakedown Theorem, and the
3 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 - Deviatoric Map.
Both are described in the following.
For Progressive Plastic Deformation not to occur, the
structure must shake down (to linear-elastic behavior) or purely
alternating plasticity must occur – action cycles which do not
result in shakedown may still show pure alternating plasticity,
and non-occurance of progressive plastic deformation may still
be possible.
The Technical Shakedown Theorem and the Symmetry
Conditions, given in the following, encompass specific plastic
deformation pattern only, together they proved to be very
effective tools to extend the range of admissible cycles by
those including alternating plasticity. In the application of the
Technical Shakedown Theorem, the Ivanov-Function, or the
Ilyushin-functions, are easy-to-use, effective tools.
THE DEVIATORIC MAP
The Deviatoric Map is a map of the stress (tensor) in the
form of an isometric representation of the principal stress
vector (in the principal stress space), see Fig. 1 and [4].
The Deviatoric Map is a very convenient tool to illustrate a
structure's behavior (at specific points) with regard to (ideal)
plasticity, especially useful in combination with Melan's
Shakedown Theorem. The deviatoric map loses some of its
information value in cases where the principal stress directions
change during the considered action cycle, but is still of
illustrative value.
MELAN’S SHAKEDOWN THEOREM
This very easy-to-use, strong theorem, a necessary and
sufficient condition for shakedown, reads:
A structure will shake down (to linear-elastic behavior)
under a given cyclic action if there exists a time-invariant self-
equilibrating stress field σ ij* ( P ) such that the sum of this
stress field and the stress field σ ijE ( P , t ) , determined with the
(unbounded) linear-elastic constitutive law for the cyclic
action, is compatible with the yield condition, i. e. the
corresponding equivalent stresses nowhere and at no time
exceed the yield strength.
So complicated the theorem reads, so easy it is to use in
connection with modern soft- and hardware [6 ÷ 9, 12] see also
Fig. 2.
Self-equilibrating stress fields, stress fields which satisfy
(solely) the equilibrium conditions, in the interior of the
structure and at the boundaries, with the imposed forces, can
easily be deduced from results of the GPD-DC: The difference
of the stress fields calculated for the same action, including the
magnitude, for two different constitutive laws is a self-
equilibrating stress field.
Each multiple of a self-equilibrating stress field is again a
self-equilibrating stress field, and each linear combination of
self-equilibrating stress fields is a self-equilibrating stress field.
Therefore, the difference of the stress field calculated for a
specific action with the elasto-plastic constitutive law and the
stress field for the same action but for the linear-elastic law is a
(very convenient) self-equilibrating stress field.
THE TECHNICAL SHAKEDOWN THEOREM
This theorem [5], very similar to Melan's shakedown
theorem, deals with so-called generalized stresses – the "usual"
stress resultants of shell, plate and beam theory, like normal
forces, bending moments, etc. Therefore, it should be used
only for (relatively) thin-walled structures: Principal radii of
curvature much greater than the thickness, typically r / t > 10 ,
lengths much greater than the thickness or cross-sectional
dimensions, typically l / t > 10 .
This theorem reads:
If there exists a time-invariant generalised self-
equilibrating stress field Qi* ( Pref ) such that the sum of this
generalised stress field and the (cyclically varying) generalised
stress field QiE ( Pref , t ) determined with the (unbounded)
linear-elastic constitutive law for the given cyclic action is
compatible with the local technical limit condition, for all
points Pref of the reference surface of the structure and every
instant of time, progressive plastic deformation (of a specific
deformation type) cannot occur.
Since this theorem is valid only for a specific deformation
pattern, with "synchronous" plastification, it is in general only
a necessary condition for the avoidance of progressive plastic
deformation (for non-PD), albeit a very useful one.
The local technical limit condition specifies the
combination of generalised stresses which correspond to full
plastification of a cross-section, or along a shell normal.
For local technical limit conditions, very good
approximations exist in the form of the so-called Ilyushin-
function, or the Ivanov-function, mostly used by us and
described in the following.
THE IVANOV APPROXIMATION
Approximations for the local technical limit condition for
thin shells made of an isotropic material with linear-elastic
ideal-plastic constitutive law and Mises' yield condition were
given by Ilyushin, in the form of the Ilyushin-functions [10,
11].
Another approximation, given by Ivanov [11], and used by
us, is the following one:
Denoting the non-dimensional stress resultants of the
theory of thin shells, standardized by the equivalent full
plastification values, by
n i = ni /( RM ⋅ t )
m i = mi /( RM ⋅ t 2 / 4 ) ,
where RM is the (design) yield strength, and using the
quadratic forms
4 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 2 2 2 Computing time, which may, for the required elasto-plastic
Q n = n x + n y − n x n y + 3n xy
2 2 2
Q m = m x + m y − m x m y + 3m xy
Q nm = m x n x + m y n y − ( m x n y + m y n x ) / 2 + 3m xy n xy
Ivanov's approximation is given by
 Q Q − Q nm 2 
Q n + Q m / 2 + Q m2 / 4 + Q nm
2
− n m  =1
 Q n + 0.48 Q m 
Especially in combination with shell or plate elements
these approximations are very useful, short post-processor
macros render illustrative plots [7, 12].
SYMMETRY CONDITIONS
With the exception of obscure cases, alternating plasticity
requires some kind of symmetry of the plastic deformation
pattern. This fact can be used to formulate symmetry
conditions for the check whether alternating plasticity is
possible for cyclic actions outside of the shakedown regime.
The two following ones are valid for the frequently met
one-parametric action cycles of the form
∑ Ai + α ( t )∑ A j , − α o ≤ α ( t ) ≤ α o .
The first one reads:
Alternating plasticity is possible if there exist two time-
invariant self-equilibrating stress fields σ ij* ( P ) and σ ij** ( P )
such that, for all points where plastification occurs, the sums
σ ij* − σ *ij* + σ ijE ( 0 ) + α oσ ijE ( 1 )
and
σ ij* + σ ij** + σ ijE ( 0 ) − α o σ ijE ( 1 )
are compatible with the yield condition, and where σ ijE( 0 ) ( P )
and σ ijE( 1 ) ( P ) are the stress fields corresponding to ∑ Ai
∑ Aj , respectively, determined with the (unbounded) linear-
elastic constitutive law.
The second one, the easier one, reads:
Alternating plasticity is possible if there exists a time-
independent self-equilibrating stress field σ ij* ( P ) such that,
for all points where plastification occurs, the sum of this stress
field and the stress field σ ijE( 0 ) ( P ) determined for ∑ Ai
the unbounded linear-elastic constitutive law, vanishes.
Both conditions can nicely be visualized in the deviatoric
map.
CONCLUSION
The discussed new approach has proven to be a major step
forward in design by analysis. The approach has been shown to
be sound, and its application gives the designer much insight
into the structure's behavior, into the safety margins against
individual failure modes. Therefore, this approach can lead to
design improvements, but also to improved in-service
inspection procedures.
There are already enough application "tools" available.
calculation, still be a matter of concern, will, with the increase
of computing power, become negligible in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Lacking enough space to list them separately, my thanks
go to all of my colleagues in the Sub-Group Design Criteria of
CEN TC 54 WG C and in the DBA research consortium and to
all those who helped, with questions and comments, to bring
the draft into its present form.
Usage of Ansys under a university licence, and the
valuable support by CADFEM AG , is acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States concerning pressure equipment
2. The Design-by-Analysis Manual. European
Commission, DG-JRC/IAM, Petten – The Netherlands, 1999.
Free internet-version: http://www.ped.eurodyn.com/ via the
links JRC, DBA. For error corrections see:
http://info.tuwien.ac.at/IAA, English, link DBA
3. European Standard. Final Draft. PrEN13445-3, March
2002: Unfired Pressure Vessels – Part 3: Design. CEN
European Committee for Standardization.
4. Zeman, J.L., Preiss, R. The deviatoric map – a simple
tool in design by analysis. Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 76
(1999) 339-344.
5. König, J.A. Shakedown of elastic plastic structures.
and Elsevier Science Publ. Co. Inc., 1987, p. 63.
6. Preiss, R. On the shakedown analysis of nozzles using
elast-plastic FEA. Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 76 (1999) 421-
434.
7. Preiss, R. Design-by-analysis of a chemical reactor's
head under sustained and thermal loads. Int. J. Pres. Ves. &
Piping 77 (2000) 277-288.
with
8. Preiss, R. CEN's DBA applied to axisymmetrical
structures – a storage tank as an example. Proceedings
ICPVT-9, Sydney, Australia, 9-14 April 2000, Vol. 1, 405-
417.
9. Rauscher, F. Design by Analysis (DBA) – the direct
route applied to some nozzles. Proceedings ICPVT-9,
Sydney, Australia, 9-14 April 2000, Vol. 1, 487-495.
10. Burgoyne, C.J., Brennan, M.G. Exact Ilyushin yield
surface. Int. J. Solids & Structures 30 (1993) 1113-1131.
5 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
11. Robinson, M.A. Comparison of yield surface for thin
shells. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 13 (1971) 345-354.

12. Preiss, R. Ratcheting and shakedown analysis of

pressure equipment using elasto-plastic Finite-Element-
Analysis. Doctoral Thesis. Vienna University of Technology ,
2000.

6 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

 Table B.8-1: RM and γ R for normal operating load cases

Material RM γR
Rp0,2/t
Ferritic steel 1,25 for ≤ 0,8
ReH or Rp0,2/t Rm/20
R p0.2/t
1,5625 otherwise
R m/20
Austenitic steel Rp1,0/t 1,25
(30%≤A5<35%)
Rp 1.0/t
1,0 for ≤ 0 ,4
Rm/t
Rp1,0/t 2,5 R p1.0/t R p1.0 / t
Austenitic steel for 0,4 < ≤ 0,5
( A5 ≥35%) R m/t Rm / t
Rp1.0/t
1,25 for > 0 ,5
Rm/t

Rp0.2/t
Steel castings 19/12 for ≤ 19/24
Rp0,2/t Rm/20
2 R p0,2/t
otherwise
Rm/20

As reference temperature of the temperature dependent material strength parameters a temperature not less than the maximum
calculation temperature of the load case shall be used.

Table B.8-2: Partial safety factors for actions and normal operating load cases

Action Condition Partial safety factor

Permanent For actions with an unfavourable effect γ G = 1,2
Permanent For actions with an favourable effect γ G = 0,8
Variable For unbounded variable actions γ Q = 1,5
Variable For bounded variable actions and limit values γ Q = 1,0
Pressure For actions without a natural limit γ P = 1,2
Pressure For actions with a natural limit, e.g. vacuum γ P = 1,0

The upper characteristic value of the pressure may be based on the maximum allowable pressure PS, i. e. the pressure
accumulation at a pressure relief device when the pressure relief device starts to discharge, the pressure increase over the maximum
allowable pressure, need not be taken into account.

7 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

 les(P,t

ss(P)

Figure 1: The Deviatoric Map

Figure 2: Melan's Shakedown Theorem

Figure 3: Deviatoric map, nozzle in knuckle region of dished end, AP

EPPL
1

EPPL
2

EPPL
3

Figure 4: Strain vs "time", nozzle in

knuckle region of dished end Figure 5: Deviatoric map, cylinder cone
intersection, PD

8 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

9 Copyright © 2002 by ASME