Incorporation of Strain Hardening

Effect Into Simplified Limit

P. S. Reddy Gudimetla1
e-mail: p.gudimetla@mun.ca
R. Adibi-Asl
R. Seshadri
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
Memorial University,
St. John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada
Analysis
In this paper, a method for determining limit loads in the components or structures by
incorporating strain hardening effects is presented. This has been done by including a
certain amount of the strain hardening into limit load analysis, which normally idealizes
the material to be elastic perfectly plastic. Typical strain hardening curves such as
bilinear hardening and Ramberg–Osgood material models are investigated. This paper
also focuses on the plastic reference volume correction concept to determine the active
volume participating in plastic collapse. The reference volume concept in combination
with m␣-tangent method is used to estimate lower-bound limit loads of different compo-
nents. Lower-bound limit loads obtained compare well with the nonlinear finite element
analysis results for several typical configurations with/without crack.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.4002059兴

1 Introduction method utilizes the elastic modulus adjustment procedure

In an actual component or structure when the stresses exceed
the yield strength of the material, the component starts to experi-
ence strain hardening. Due to strain hardening, the component or
structure can withstand more loads 关1兴. In the traditional way of
limit load calculations, the material models are assumed to be
elastic perfectly plastic 共EPP兲 关2–4兴. However, this may be very
conservative for a material that has significant strain hardening.
Therefore, by considering the effect of strain hardening while es-
timating the limit load, more realistic values can be obtained.
This paper addresses the effect of material strain hardening on
limit load estimation. The commonly used material models,
namely, bilinear hardening 共BH兲 and Ramberg–Osgood 共RO兲
models, are investigated. This paper also considers the plastic ref-
erence volume correction concept to find the active volume par-
ticipating in plastic action. It is well known that at limit state of a
component/structure, there are some regions that do not partici-
pate in inelastic action 共dead volume兲 and may remain rigid or
elastic. On the other hand, the remaining volumes that are directly
active in plastic action 共plastic reference volume兲 are the only
regions that carry the external loads at impending limit state. Iden-
tification of plastic reference volume in a body is useful for esti-
mating improved limit loads. Adibi-Asl and Seshadri 关5,6兴 used
the plastic reference volume concept to obtain more accurate es-
timation of lower- and upper-bound limit loads. An iterative elas-
tic scheme was introduced in their work for estimation of the
plastic reference volume in a component/structure. As well, the
concept of plastic reference volume was employed in Ref. 关7兴 to
investigate the optimum design condition 共i.e., weight and shape兲
of component/structure at the limit load state. The ideal condition
in limit state is when full plasticization occurs in a given compo-
nent 关8兴, which may be unachievable in reality. Therefore, the first
step in optimal design is to distinguish the reference volumes and
inactive volumes in the component or structure. By removing the
inactive volumes or specifying the material of the higher strength
in reference volume regions, an optimal solution may be achieved.
An alternative method of estimation the plastic reference volume
based on elastic solution is proposed in this paper. The proposed
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received February 23,
2010; final manuscript received June 11, 2010; published online October 13, 2010.
Assoc. Editor: Zhangzhi Cen.
共EMAP兲 to estimate the lower- and upper-bound limit load mul-
tipliers. The aim of EMAP is to establish inelasticlike stress fields
by modifying the local elastic modulus in order to obtain the
necessary stress redistribution.
Marriott 关9兴 developed an iterative procedure for estimating
lower-bound limit loads based on the linear elastic finite element
analysis 共LEFEA兲 by generating statically admissible stress fields,
used in conjunction with established theorems of limit analysis.
Seshadri and Fernando 关10兴 made use of the elastic modulus ad-
justment procedure to determine lower-bound limit loads by
adopting the reference stress concepts that are used in creep de-
sign. Mackenzie and Boyle 关11兴 utilized the elastic modulus ad-
justment procedure suggested by Marriott 关9兴 and Seshadri 关12兴,
and referred to it as the elastic compensation method. A detailed
development of the formal basis for the elastic modulus adjust-
ment and related procedures has been provided by Ponter et al.
关13,14兴. The general EMAP has been applied to a variety of prob-
lems such as tubesheet design 关15兴, limit load estimation in lay-
ered structures 关16兴, limit analysis in anisotropic material 关17兴,
limit load analysis in metal forming processes 关18兴, and limit load
analysis of the structures with flaw 关19兴.
2 Theoretical Background
The general form of strain hardening material model can be
represented by following equation:
␧ = f共␴0, ␴兲 共1兲
where ␴0 is a reference value of stress that is usually taken as the
yield strength, and ␴ is the applied stress 关20兴.
Bilinear hardening material model, represented by line seg-
ments with slopes related to the elastic modulus and tangent
modulus, is the simplest representation of the strain hardened ma-
terial properties. Ramberg–Osgood material model is more com-
plicated and closer to the actual material properties of a compo-
nent 关21兴. In the stress-strain curve once the yield strength is
exceeded, then plasticity occurs. In the initial portion of the plastic
region, the rise in the curve is due to the presence of the strain
hardening in the material. The inherent strength due to strain hard-
ening can be utilized if the yield strength of an equivalent elastic
perfectly plastic material model is obtained by integrating this
portion of the curve. By integrating the equations for the material
models, the expressions for equivalent yield strength can be ob-
tained. As shown in Fig. 1, equating the strain energy densities of

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2010 by ASME DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 061201-1

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 relationship is given by
␴ 0 共 ␴ − ␴ 0兲
␧= + 共3兲
E0 Et
For a bilinear material model, Eq. 共2兲 can be rewritten as

LHS ª 冕冉␴0
␴ⴱy
␴ 0 共 ␴ − ␴ 0兲
E0
+
Et
冊 1
d␴ − ␧0共␴ⴱy − ␴0兲 − 共␴ⴱy − ␴0兲共␧1
2

− ␧ 0兲

冉 冊 冕冉 冊
␴f
␴ 0 共 ␴ f − ␴ 0兲 ␴ 0 共 ␴ − ␴ 0兲
RHS ª + 共␴ f − ␴ⴱy 兲 − + d␴
E0 Et ␴ⴱy
E0 Et
Equating LHS= RHS,
␴ⴱy = 共1 − ␤兲␴0 + ␤␴ f ⫾ 冑␤共␤ − 1兲共␴ f − ␴0兲 共4兲
where ␤ = E0 / Et. Using Eq. 共4兲, the equivalent yield strength for
bilinear hardening material can be obtained.
Fig. 1 Illustrative determination of ␴yⴱ
2.2 Ramberg–Osgood Material Hardening Model. The
Ramberg–Osgood material model can be written as
the shaded areas 共i.e., A1 = A2兲, the strain hardening curve can be
represented by an equivalent elastic perfectly plastic model with
the yield strength of ␴ⴱy . Therefore, ␴ⴱy can be determined by fol-
␧=
␴ ␣␴0 ␴
+
E0 E0 ␴0
冉 冊 n
共5兲

lowing equation: where ␣ is the dimensionless material constant, and n is the strain

冕
hardening exponent.
␴ⴱy
1 Simplifying Eq. 共2兲 after using Eq. 共5兲, we get an expression
␧d␴ − ␧0共␴ⴱy − ␴0兲 − 共␴ⴱy − ␴0兲共␧1 − ␧0兲
2 that leads to the equivalent yield strength, ␴*y ,
␴0

冕
␴f A␴ⴱ2 ⴱ
y − B␴ y + C = 0 共6兲
= ␧ f 共␴ f − ␴ⴱy 兲 − ␧d␴ 共2兲 where A, B, and C are expressed in terms of material properties
␴ⴱy
A=1
where 共␴ⴱy , ␧ⴱy 兲 is equivalent yield strength point, 共␴ , ␧兲 is an arbi-
trary point on a strain hardening curve, and ␴ f is the related stress
to the cut-off strain, ␧ f . It should be mentioned that ␧1 can be
calculated using the linear relation ␧1 = ␴ⴱy / E0.
冉
B = 2 ␴f +
␣␴nf
␴n−1
0
冊
Different material models such as the BH material and RO 2␣n␴n+1
f
relationship have been studied herein. These material models can C= + ␴2f
represent true stress-strain material curves within the small strain 共n + 1兲共␴n−1
0 兲
regions 关22兴. Therefore, the portion of the curve, which is used for Usually the value of cut-off strain, ␧ f is available as a material
determining the equivalent yield stress of equivalent elastic per- parameter. Therefore, in order to calculate ␴ f , the following equa-
fectly plastic material model, is limited to these regions only by tion needs to be solved:
choosing the cut-off strain ␧ f to be at 0.05.
␴n−1
0 E0␴n−1
0 ␧f
2.1 Bilinear Hardening Material Model. A schematic plot ␴nf + ␴f − =0 共7兲
of a bilinear material model is shown in Fig. 2. The stress-strain
␣ ␣
Once ␴ f is known by using Eq. 共6兲, the equivalent yield strength
of the Ramberg–Osgood material model can be calculated.

3 Limit Load Multipliers

The limit load is the load at which unrestrained plastic defor-
mation occurs in a perfectly plastic structure that is on the verge
of collapse. The limit load is a quantitative measure of the load
carrying capacity of such a structure. Limit analysis is especially
attractive as it simplifies the inelastic analysis by assuming an
elastic perfectly plastic material model 关23,24兴. The limit load
multiplier scales the applied loads proportionally to that level
where the structure reaches its limit state. The best estimate limit
load multiplier is available only by performing a plastic limit
analysis 关25兴. Several estimates and bounds of the best estimate
limit load multiplier can be obtained from an elastic analysis, as
discussed in Secs. 3.1–3.3.

3.1 Upper-Bound Limit Load Multipliers

3.1.1 Multiplier m01. The deviatoric stress state for applied
Fig. 2 Bilinear hardening material model traction Ti is denoted as s0ij. The deviatoric stress state for impend-

061201-2 / Vol. 132, DECEMBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 ing plastic flow can be described as s̄0ij = m0s0ij, in which m0 is the 3.3 The m␣-Tangent Method. Seshadri and Adibi-Asl 关29兴
statically admissible upper-bound limit load multiplier. The von introduced the concept of the “reference two-bar model” to relate
Mises yield criterion at limit state is given by a general configuration to the reference two-bar structure. The
scaling equations were proposed to estimate the limit load in a
3 given component using linear elastic analyses. More recently, Se-
f共s̄ij兲 = s̄ij0 s̄ij0 − ␴2y 共8兲
2 shadri and Hossain 关30兴 further extended the reference two-bar
and the general form of associated flow rule can be expressed as model and proposed the so-called m␣-tangent method, which en-

冉 冊
ables estimation of limit load using a single linear elastic analysis.
⳵f The method has explicit dependency on the upper-bound multi-
␧˙ ij = ␮ where ␮ⱖ0 共9兲
⳵ sij plier, m0, and the classical lower-bound multiplier, mL. The upper-
bound multiplier, m0, depends on the entire stress distribution in a
Mura et al. 关26,27兴 proposed the concept of “integral mean of
component or structure, whereas mL depends on the magnitude of
yield” in the context of variational formulation. The integral mean
maximum stress.
of yield criterion can be expressed as
The m␣-tangent multiplier can be readily evaluated by using the

冕 VT
␮0关f共s̄ij0 兲 + 共␸0兲2兴dV = 0 共10兲
following equation:

m0
Assuming a constant flow parameter ␮0 and ␸0 = 0, for linear elas- m␣T = 共16兲
1 + 0.2929共␨ − 1兲
tic relationship, the following expression can be obtained 关25兴:
where ␨ = m0 / mL.
␴y冑VT ␴y冑VT As discussed in Ref. 关30兴, for components where ␨ ⬎ 1 + 冑2,

冑冕 冑兺
m01共=m0兲 = ⇔ N
共11兲
redistribution of secondary stresses could occur along with peak
共␴eq兲 dV
2
共␴eq兲2k ⌬Vk stresses. In such cases, the value of m0 is not constant during the
VT k=1 blunting of peak stresses, and there is a gradual reduction in its
magnitude. The choice of reference volume plays an important
where N is the total number of elements, ␴y is the yield strength,
role in finding out the correct estimates of limit loads. Generally,
␴ek and ⌬Vk are the equivalent stress and volume of elements k,
for the component for which ␨ ⬎ 1 + 冑2, finding the limit load
respectively, and VT is the total volume of the component. The m01
requires the proper estimation of reference volume as these com-
limit load multiplier has been shown to be greater than classical
ponents have localized plastic regions being developed leading to
upper-bound limit load multiplier 关25兴.
larger dead volumes. In the m␣-tangent method, the complete vol-
3.1.2 Multiplier m02. Equation 共11兲 implies that the calculation ume is used when calculating limit loads. In this paper, the plastic
of m01 is based on the total volume VT. If plastic collapse occurs reference volume corrections are employed to correct the upper-
over a localized region of the structure m01 will be significantly bound multiplier.
overestimated. To overcome this problem, Pan and Seshadri 关28兴
proposed a new formulation for evaluating m0, namely, m02.
Based on the deformation theory of plasticity, the flow rule can 4 Plastic Reference Volume Method
be expressed as
The plastic reference volume is a subvolume of the component,
eij = ␮sij 共12兲 which actively participates in plastic action at failure, whereas
where eij and sij are the deviatoric strain and stress, respectively. dead volume is the subvolume that does not participate. As shown
Therefore, ␮ can be defined as in Fig. 3, this method of finding the plastic reference volume of
general component involves integration of the m0 versus V̄␩ curve.
3 ¯␧ After the first linear elastic FEA, the elements are sorted in
␮= 共13兲
2 ¯␴ descending order of the equivalent stresses i.e., ␴1eq ⬎ ␴2eq ⬎ ␴3eq
where ¯␴ = 冑共3 / 2兲sijsij is the effective stress and ¯␧ = 冑共2 / 3兲eijeij is ⬎ ¯ ⬎ ␴neq 共similar to the procedures discussed in Refs.
关5,6兴兲.The corresponding subvolumes are calculated. The upper-
the effective strain. Substituting Eq. 共13兲 into the integral mean of
bound multiplier m0 is given by the following equation:
yield criterion, the m02 limit load multiplier can be obtained as 关28兴

冑冕 共␧eq/␴eq兲dV 冑兺 N

共␧eq/␴eq兲k⌬Vk

冑冕 冑兺
VT k=1
m02 = ␴y ⇔ ␴y N
共14兲
␴eq␧eqdV 共␴eq␧eq兲k⌬Vk
VT k=1

3.2 Lower-Bound Multiplier mL. The lower-bound limit

load can be calculated by invoking the lower-bound limit load
theorem that states that if a statically admissible stress distribution
throughout a given body can be found in which the stress nowhere
exceeds yield under given loading and everywhere is in equilib-
rium internally and balances certain external loads, the applied
load is a lower bound on the limit 关26兴. A lower-bound load can
therefore be established by estimating the load required to give a
maximum equivalent stress equal to the nominal yield strength,
␴y. Therefore, the classical lower-bound multiplier mL is given by
␴y
mL = 共15兲
共␴eq兲max Fig. 3 Plot of m0 versus V̄␩

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 061201-3

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 ␴y冑VT have large dead volumes because of their geometry 共i.e.,

冑兺
m0 = n
共17兲 notched components兲. In such cases, m0共VRp兲 will result in
upper-bounded values.
␴2k Vk
k=1

Using Eq. 共17兲, the m0 values for different subvolumes is calcu- 5 Elastic Modulus Adjustment Procedure
lated as shown below:
An alternative method for estimating limit load is the EMAP.
␴y冑V1 The aim of EMAP is to establish inelasticlike stress fields by
m 共V␩=1兲 =
0
共18兲
冑␴21V1 = mL modifying the local elastic modulus in order to obtain the neces-
sary stress redistribution 关31兴. Numerous sets of statically admis-
␴y冑V1 + V2
sible and kinematically admissible distributions can be generated
m0共V␩=2兲 = 共19兲 in this manner, which enable the calculation of both lower- and
冑␴21V1 + ␴22V2 upper-bound limit loads.
The elastic modulus of each element in the linear elastic finite
In a more generalized form element scheme is systematically modified using the following
␴y冑V1 + V2 + ¯ + Vk equation:

冉 冊
m0共V␩=k兲 = 共20兲
冑␴21V1 + ␴22V2 + ¯ + ␴2k Vk ␴ref
i q
Ei+1 = Ei 共24兲
If the k in Eq. 共20兲 is the last element in the sorted elements of a ␴ieq
component, then m0共V␩=k兲 = m0共VT兲. Equation 共20兲 can be rewrit- where q is the elastic modulus adjustment parameter, ␴ref is the
ten in terms of subvolume ratios as follows: reference stress, ␴eq is the equivalent stress, and i is the iteration
index 共i = 1 for the initial elastic analysis兲.

冑
␴y

冑兺
m0共V␩兲 = n
共21兲 n
␴2k Vk
VT
兺␴ V
k
2
k k
k=1
␴ref
i
= 共25兲
These m values are then plotted against the subvolume ratio 共i.e.,
0 VT
V̄␩兲. A schematic of m0 versus V̄␩ plot is shown in Fig. 3. As each Equation 共24兲 describes how the elastic modulus at a location with
of the subvolume has a corresponding m0 value, the reference the equivalent stress ␴eq 共e.g., the von-Mises equivalent stress兲 is
volume, which is also a subvolume will have a corresponding m0 updated from the ith to the 共i + 1兲th elastic iteration. This proce-
known as reference multiplier, m0共VR兲. dure continues until suitable convergence of a subsequent iteration
As can be seen from Fig. 3, whenever the subvolume ratio is is achieved. In this paper, the value of q is consistently assumed to
close to 0, m0共V␩兲 = mL and when the subvolume ratio reaches 1, be 0.1 when using EMAP, ensuring a slow but less fluctuating
m0共V␩兲 = m0共VT兲. Therefore, the reference multiplier should satisfy convergence trajectory.
both these conditions and also have to achieve all the intermediate
m0 values at different subvolume ratios. This can be accomplished
6 General Procedure
by taking a small segment of m0 versus V̄␩ curve and integrating
it over the entire range of subvolume ratios. In this section, a general procedure is outlined in a step by step
The value of m0共VRp兲 can be obtained by the following equa- manner to determine the lower-bound multipliers for components
tion: undergoing strain hardening using the proposed method.

冕 • Initially equivalent yield strength is calculated for the given

1
m0共VRp兲 = mref = m共V␩兲dV␩ 共22兲 hardened material. For bilinear hardening material, Eq. 共4兲
0 is used and if it is a Ramberg–Osgood description, then Eq.
共6兲 is used.
For ease of calculations, the above expression can be rewritten as
• The first linear elastic finite element analysis is carried out

冕
1 N for a given model with the prescribed loading and boundary

0
m共␨兲d␨ = mL + 兺 共V̄
k=2
k − V̄k−1兲 ⫻ 共m0k − mL兲
The point C, which is the point of intersection of the m 共VRp兲 line
with m0 versus V̄␩ curve, will give the value of plastic reference
volume factor V̄Rp. This reference volume factor will further be
used to determine the modified multiplier, as is explained in Sec.
4.1.
4.1 Categorization of Components. General components are
categorized into two groups depending on the initial m0 / mL val-
ues. The value of m0 / mL is an indication of presence of dead
volume in a component.
1. If m0 / mL ⱕ 1 + 冑2, then the components are well designed,
and have negligible dead volume, in such cases, m0共VRp兲
will be lower-bound values.
2. If m0 / mL ⬎ 1 + 冑2, then the components will have dead vol-
ume. In this category, components are again divided into two
groups. First, ones that develop flaws or defects during op-
eration 共i.e., cracked components兲 and, second, those that
共23兲
•
conditions.
The elements in the component are sorted in descending
order of the equivalent stress values.
0
• The m0 value is calculated using Eq. 共14兲 for the compo-
nent, as is discussed in Sec. 5, and mL using Eq. 共15兲.
• Then these values of m0 are plotted against V̄␩ and m0共VRp兲
is calculated using the Eq. 共23兲.
• Depending on the value of m0 / mL, the components are ap-
propriately grouped.
• For the components for which m0 / mL ⬍ 1 + 冑2, the value of
m0共VRp兲 is a lower-bound multiplier.
• For the components whose m0 / mL ⬎ 1 + 冑2, the value of
mT␣共VRp兲 should be calculated using Eq. 共16兲.
• The above steps are repeated until the converged or near
converged solution is obtained.
In Sec. 7, the plastic reference volume approach is used to find
the lower-bound limit loads of some general components. The
examples are so chosen that each one falls into one of the groups
as classified earlier.

061201-4 / Vol. 132, DECEMBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 4 Thick walled cylinder: „a… geometry and dimensions and „b… typical
finite element mesh with loading

Table 1 Comparison of various multipliers of thick walled cylinder for various material hard-
ening models „LEFEA…

Problem m0 mL m0 / mL m0共VRp兲 mnon

共1兲 Perfectly plastic 2.294 1.683 1.36 1.99 2.26

共2兲 Bilinear hardening 3.039 2.212 1.37 2.65 2.98
共3兲 Ramberg–Osgood 2.972 2.163 1.37 2.59 2.91

7 Numerical Examples • Bilinear hardening material model:

In this section, the method described in this paper is applied to E0 = 200 GPa; ␴0 = 300 MPa;ET = 0.02 ⫻ E0 ;␧ f = 0.05;
several component configurations, and the results are compared
with the limit load results using nonlinear FEA analysis. Elastic The equivalent yield strength calculated using Eq. 共4兲 is
perfectly plastic material is used to estimate the limit loads using ␴ⴱy = 397.50 MPa.
nonlinear finite element analysis. In the plastic limit state, the • Ramberg–Osgood material model:
body fully or partially undergoes unrestricted plastic deformation E0 = 200 GPa, ␴0 = 300 MPa, ␣ = 1.34, n = 8.60
under constant external load.
The stress at the cut-off strain calculated using Eq. 共7兲 is
7.1 Thick Walled Cylinder. A thick walled cylinder 共Fig. 4兲 ␴ f = 433.69 MPa.
with inside radius of R = 65 mm and thickness t = 25 mm is mod- Various coefficients of Eq. 共6兲 is calculated and given
eled. An internal pressure of 50 MPa is applied. The material is below:
assumed to be elastic perfectly plastic. The modulus of elasticity
is specified as 200 GPa and the yield strength is assumed to be A = 1, B = 1999.19, C = 7.62 ⫻ 106
300 MPa. For a plastic flow state, the Poisson ratio of 0.47 is used
The equivalent yield strength calculated using Eq. 共6兲 is
in the elastic analysis. The geometry is modeled using Plane82
elements with plane strain condition 关32兴. ␴ⴱy = 388.62 MPa 共sample calculation of the various param-
The following strain hardening material properties are consid- eters is given in Appendix兲.
ered.

Fig. 5 Variation of m0„VRp… and m␣T „VRp… with iterations for bi- Fig. 6 Variation of m0„VRp… and m␣T „VRp… with iterations for
linear hardening thick cylinder „EMAP… Ramberg–Osgood hardening thick cylinder „EMAP…

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 061201-5

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Table 2 Comparison of various multipliers of thick walled cylinder for bilinear material hard-
ening model „EMAP…

Iteration m0 mL m0共VRp兲 mT␣共VRp兲 mnon

1 3.039 2.212 2.65 2.50 2.98

5 3.009 2.439 2.75 2.65
10 2.994 2.641 2.83 2.77
15 2.989 2.772 2.89 2.86
20 2.987 2.856 2.93 2.91

Table 3 Comparison of various multipliers of thick walled cylinder for Ramberg–Osgood ma-
terial hardening model „EMAP…

Iteration m0 mL m0共VRp兲 mT␣共VRp兲 mnon

1 2.972 2.163 2.59 2.45 2.91

5 2.942 2.384 2.68 2.59
10 2.927 2.582 2.77 2.71
15 2.922 2.710 2.83 2.79
20 2.921 2.792 2.86 2.84

The comparisons of various multipliers with different material
hardening models for first iterations are presented in Table 1.
Variations of m0共VRp兲 and mT␣共VRp兲 with different iterations for
bilinear hardening material model are presented in Fig. 5. Varia-
tions of m0共VRp兲 and mT␣共VRp兲 with different iterations for
Ramberg–Osgood hardening material model are presented in Fig.
6. The multiplier values at different iterations are summarized in
Tables 2 and 3.
7.2 Compact Tension (CT) Specimen. A compact tension
specimen, as shown in Fig. 7, with a width W = 100 mm, height
H = 125 mm, thickness t = 3 mm, and crack length a = 46 mm is
subjected to a tensile load of P = 10 kN. The material is assumed
to be elastic perfectly plastic. The modulus of elasticity is speci-
fied as 211 GPa and the yield strength is assumed to be 250 MPa.
Due to symmetry in geometry and loading, only a half of the plate
is modeled using Plane82 elements with plane stress consider-
ation. Singularity elements are used at and around the crack-tip.
The following strain hardening material properties are consid-
ered:
• Bilinear hardening material model:
E0 = 211 GPa, ␴0 = 250 MPa, ET = 0.015 ⫻ E0, ␧f
= 0.05
The equivalent yield strength calculated using Eq. 共4兲 is
␴ⴱy = 327.54 MPa.
• Ramberg–Osgood material model:
E0 = 211 GPa, ␴0 = 250 MPa, ␣ = 1.69, n = 8.60
The stress at the cut-off strain calculated using Eq. 共7兲 is
␴ f = 361.97 MPa.
Various coefficients of Eq. 共6兲 is calculated and given
below:
A = 1, B = 21101.72, C = 6.74 ⫻ 106
The equivalent yield strength calculated using Eq. 共6兲 is
␴ⴱy = 324.33 MPa
The comparisons of various multipliers with different material
hardening models for first iterations are presented in Table 4.
Variations of m0共VRp兲 and mT␣共VRp兲 with different iterations for
bilinear hardening material model are presented in Fig. 8. Simi-
larly, variations of m0共VRp兲 and mT␣共VRp兲 with different iterations
for Ramberg–Osgood hardening material model are presented in
Fig. 9. The multiplier values at different iterations are summarized
in of Figs. 8 and 9 are given in Tables 5 and 6.
7.3 Indeterminate Beam. An indeterminate beam 共Fig. 10兲
with length L = 508 mm and height h = 25.4 mm is modeled. It is
subjected to uniformly distributed load of P = 1.0 MPa. The ma-
terial is assumed to be elastic perfectly plastic. The modulus of
elasticity is specified as 206.85 GPa and the yield strength is
assumed to be 206.85 MPa. The beam is modeled using Plane82

Fig. 7 CT specimen: „a… geometry and dimensions and „b… typical finite
element mesh with loading

061201-6 / Vol. 132, DECEMBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Table 4 Comparison of various multipliers of CT Specimen for various material hardening
models „LEFEA…

Problem m0 mL m0 / mL mT␣共VRp兲 mnon

共1兲 Perfectly plastic 1.590 0.167 9.52 0.47 0.81

共2兲 Bilinear hardening 2.084 0.218 9.53 0.68 1.06
共3兲 Ramberg–Osgood 2.023 0.212 9.54 0.66 1.04

Fig. 8 Variation of m0„VRp… and m␣T „VRp… with iterations for bi- Fig. 9 Variation of m0„VRp… and m␣T „VRp… with iterations for
linear hardening CT specimen „EMAP… Ramberg–Osgood hardening CT specimen „EMAP…

Table 5 Comparison of various multipliers of CT Specimen for bilinear material hardening

model „EMAP…

Iteration m0 mL m0共VRp兲 mT␣共VRp兲 mnon

1 2.084 0.218 1.56 0.68 1.06

4 1.918 0.277 1.50 0.76
8 1.761 0.369 1.44 0.84
12 1.644 0.470 1.39 0.91
18 1.514 0.626 1.32 1.00

Table 6 Comparison of various multipliers of CT Specimen for Ramberg–Osgood material

hardening model „EMAP…

Iteration m0 mL m0共VRp兲 mT␣共VRp兲 mnon

1 2.023 0.212 1.51 0.66 1.04

4 1.863 0.269 1.46 0.74
8 1.710 0.358 1.40 0.82
12 1.597 0.456 1.35 0.88
18 1.471 0.608 1.28 0.97

elements with plane stress consideration.

Two different kinds of strain hardening material properties are
considered for examination.
The following strain hardening material properties are consid-
ered:
• Bilinear hardening material model:

E0 = 206.85 GPa, ␴0 = 206.85 MPa, ET = 0.01

⫻ E 0, ␧ f = 0.05

The equivalent yield strength calculated using Eq. 共4兲 is

␴ⴱy = 257.66 MPa. Fig. 10 Indeterminate beam: „a… geometry and dimensions
• Ramberg–Osgood material model: and „b… typical finite element mesh with loading

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 061201-7

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Table 7 Comparison of various multipliers of indeterminate beam for various material hard-
ening models „LEFEA…

Problem m0 mL m0 / mL mT␣共VRp兲 mnon

共1兲 Perfectly plastic 2.649 0.613 4.32 1.23 1.54

共2兲 Bilinear hardening 3.300 0.763 4.33 1.53 1.92
共3兲 Ramberg–Osgood 3.453 0.799 4.32 1.60 2.01

Fig. 11 Variation of m0„VRp… and m␣T „VRp… with iterations for Fig. 12 Variation of m0„VRp… and m␣T „VRp… with iterations for
bilinear hardening indeterminate beam „EMAP… Ramberg–Osgood hardening indeterminate beam „EMAP…

E0 = 206.85 GPa, ␴0 = 206.85 MPa, ␣ = 2, n = 8.47 bilinear hardening material model are presented in Fig. 11. Varia-
The stress at the failure calculated using Eq. 共7兲 is ␴ f tions of m0共VRp兲 and mT␣共VRp兲 with different iterations for
= 301.43 MPa. Ramberg–Osgood hardening material model are presented in Fig.
Various coefficients of Eq. 共6兲 are calculated and given 12. The multiplier values at different iterations are summarized in
below: Tables 8 and 9.
A = 1, B = 20685.59, C = 5.50 ⫻ 106
The equivalent yield strength calculated using Eq. 共6兲 is
8 Discussion
␴ⴱy = 269.65 MPa. From initial elastic analysis for any component, m0 / mL can be
calculated. Depending on the m0 / mL ratio, the component will fall
The comparisons of various multipliers with different material into one of the categories as explained earlier. For the compo-
hardening models for first iterations are presented in Table 7. nents, which fall under first category, m0共VRp兲 will be taken as the
Variations of m0共VRp兲 and mT␣共VRp兲 with different iterations for lower-bound multiplier, and for the components, which fall under

Table 8 Comparison of various multipliers of indeterminate beam for bilinear material hard-
ening model „EMAP…

Iteration m0 mL m0共VRp兲 mT␣共VRp兲 mnon

1 3.300 0.763 2.37 1.53 1.92

4 2.935 0.885 2.29 1.58
8 2.645 1.042 2.22 1.67
12 2.476 1.185 2.17 1.75
16 2.369 1.309 2.14 1.81

Table 9 Comparison of various multipliers of indeterminate beam for Ramberg–Osgood ma-

terial hardening model „EMAP…

Iteration m0 mL m0共VRp兲 mT␣共VRp兲 mnon

1 3.453 0.799 2.48 1.60 2.01

4 3.072 0.926 2.39 1.65
8 2.768 1.091 2.32 1.74
12 2.591 1.240 2.27 1.83
16 2.480 1.370 2.24 1.89

061201-8 / Vol. 132, DECEMBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 second category, mT␣共VRp兲 will be taken as the lower-bound mul- E0 = 200 GPa, ␴0 = 300 MPa, ET = 0.02 ⫻ E0, ␧f
tiplier. It can be concluded that if plastic reference volume correc-
tion is employed mT␣ multiplier will always be a lower-bound
value. Comparing the results, it can be concluded that the multi-
= 0.05, ␤=
E0
ET
冉 冊
= 50

pliers obtained by using the equivalent elastic perfectly plastic The stress at the failure point is

冉 冊
material models using equivalent yield strength 共which includes
strain hardening effect兲 are greater than the ones obtained by us- ␴0
␴ f = ET ⴱ ␧ f + ␴0 − = 494.00 MPa
ing the regular yield strength. ␤
The equivalent yield strength is calculated using Eq. 共4兲,
9 Conclusion
␴ⴱy = 397.50 MPa
A simple approach is discussed in this paper to determine
equivalent yield strength of a material model with strain harden- • Ramberg–Osgood material model:
ing. Two different strain hardening material models, namely, the E0 = 200 GPa, ␴0 = 300 MPa, ␣ = 1.33, n = 8.60
bilinear hardening and Ramberg–Osgood models, are investi-
gated. The estimated yield strength along with limit load multipli- The stress at the failure point is calculated using Eq. 共7兲,
ers 共using the reference volume approach兲 are used to determine ␴ f = 433.69 MPa
the more appropriate limit load of a component with strain hard-
ening material. The applicability of the proposed procedure is Using Eq. 共6兲, various coefficients are calculated:
demonstrated through several numerical examples. The estimated A=1
limit loads are in good agreement with the ones obtained from
nonlinear finite element analysis.

Acknowledgment
冉
B = 2ⴱ ␴ f +
␣␴nf
␴n−1
0
冊
= 19999.19

R. Seshadri wishes to acknowledge the financial support pro- 2␣n␴n+1

f
vided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council C= + ␴2f = 7.62 ⫻ 106
共n + 1兲共␴n−1
0 兲
of Canada, and the Canada Research Chairs program 共ww-
w.chairs.gc.ca兲, which made the research possible. The equivalent yield strength is calculated using Eq. 共6兲,
␴ⴱy = 388.62 MPa.
Nomenclature
E0 ⫽ modulus of elasticity References
Et ⫽ tangent modulus 关1兴 Shames, I. H., and Cozzarelli, F. A., 1992, Elastic and Inelastic Stress Analy-
sis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
f共sij兲 ⫽ yield function 关2兴 Mendelson, A., 1968, Plasticity: Theory and Application, Macmillan, New
mnon ⫽ nonlinear limit load multiplier York.
m0 ⫽ upper-bound multiplier 关3兴 Calladine, C. R., 2000, Plasticity for Engineers: Theory and Application, Ellis
Horwood, Chichester.
mL ⫽ classical lower-bound multiplier 关4兴 Hill, R., 1950, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University
m0共V␩兲 ⫽ multiplier for subvolumes Press, London.
mo共VRp兲 ⫽ corrected multiplier 共plastic reference volume兲 关5兴 Adibi-Asl, R., and Seshadri, R., 2007, “Limit Load Analysis of Cracked Com-
ponents Using the Reference Volume Method,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel
mT␣ ⫽ m␣ tangent multiplier Technol., 129, pp. 391–399.
m␣共VRp兲
T
⫽ m␣ tangent multiplier 共reference volume兲 关6兴 Adibi-Asl, R., and Seshadri, R., 2007, “Local Limit-Load Analysis Using the
q ⫽ elastic modulus adjustment parameter m␤ Method,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 129, pp. 296–305.
关7兴 Adibi-Asl, R., 2008, “Simplified Limit Load Determination for Integrity As-
sij ⫽ deviatoric stress field sessment,” Ph.D. thesis, Memorial University, St. John, NL, Canada.
s̄0ij ⫽ statically admissible deviatoric stress at im- 关8兴 Zyczkowski, M., 1981, Combined Loadings in the Theory of Plasticity, Polish-
pending plastic flow. Scientific, Warsaw.
关9兴 Marriott, D. L., 1988, “Evaluation of Deformation or Load Control of Stress
s0ij ⫽ statically admissible deviatoric stress field Under Inelastic Conditions Using Elastic Finite Element Stress Analysis,” PVP
V̄␩ ⫽ subvolume ratio 共Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.兲, 136, pp. 3–9.
关10兴 Seshadri, R., and Fernando, C. P. D., 1992, “Limit Loads of Mechanical Com-
VR ⫽ reference volume ponents and Structures Using the GLOSS R-Node Method,” ASME J. Pressure
VRp ⫽ plastic reference volume Vessel Technol., 114, pp. 201–208.
VT ⫽ total volume 关11兴 Mackenzie, D., and Boyle, J. T., 1992, “A Method of Estimating Limit Loads
Using Elastic Analysis. I: Simple Examples,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping,
Greek Symbols 53, pp. 77–95.
关12兴 Seshadri, R., 1991, “The Generalized Local Stress Strain 共GLOSS兲 Analysis—
␧ ⫽ strain Theory and Applications,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 113, pp. 219–
␧˙ ij ⫽ strain rate tensor 227.
␸0 ⫽ point function 关13兴 Ponter, A. R. S., Fuschi, P., and Engelhardt, M., 2000, “Limit Analysis for a
␮ ⫽ plastic flow parameter General Class of Yield Conditions,” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, 19, pp. 401–421.
关14兴 Ponter, A. R. S., and Engelhardt, M., 2000, “Shakedown Limit for a General
␯ ⫽ Poisson’s ratio Yield Condition,” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, 19, pp. 423–445.
␴ij ⫽ stress tensor 关15兴 Reinhardt, W. D., and Mangalaramanan, S. P., 2001, “Efficient Tube Sheet
␴max ⫽ maximum stress Design Using Repeated Elastic Limit Analysis,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel
Technol., 123, pp. 197–202.
␴eq ⫽ von Mises equivalent stress 关16兴 Pan, L., and Seshadri, R., 2002, “Limit Loads for Layered Structures Using
␴ref ⫽ reference stress Extended Variational Principles and Repeated Elastic Finite Element Analy-
␴y ⫽ yield stress sis,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 124, pp. 425–432.
关17兴 Indermohan, H., Reinhardt, W. D., and Seshadri, R., 2004, “Limit Load of
␴ⴱy ⫽ equivalent yield stress Anisotropic Components Using the M-Beta Multiplier Method,” ASME J.
Pressure Vessel Technol., 126, pp. 455–460.
Appendix 关18兴 Adibi-Asl, R., and Seshadri, R., 2006, “Modulus Adjustment Procedures
共EMAP兲 in Metal Forming Analysis,” Trans. Can. Soc. Mech. Eng., 30, pp.
A sample calculation for the cylinder problem is presented here: 239–260.
关19兴 Chen, L. J., Liu, Y. H., Yang, P., and Cen, Z. Z., 2008, “Limit Analysis of
• Bilinear hardening material model: Structures Containing Flaws Based on a Modified Elastic Compensation

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 061201-9

Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Method,” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, 27, pp. 195–209.
关20兴 Adibi-Asl, R., and Seshadri, R., 2009, “Simplified Estimation Method for In-
elastic Energy Release Rate,” Proceedings of the 12th International Confer-
ence on Fracture 共ICF-12兲, Ottawa, Canada.
关21兴 Hosford, W. F., 2005, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, New York.
关22兴 Huh, N. S., Kim, Y. J., Choi, Y. H., and Yang, J. S., 2004, “On Relevant
Ramberg-Osgood Fit to Engineering Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics Analysis,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 126, pp. 277–283.
关23兴 ASME, 2007, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,
Division 1, NB—Class 1 Components and Appendices,” Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
关24兴 ASME, 2007, “Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, Division 2, alter-
native Rules,” Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers, New York.
关25兴 Seshadri, R., and Mangalaramanan, S. P., 1997, “Lower Bound Limit Loads
Using Variational Concepts: The m␣-Method,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping,
061201-10 / Vol. 132, DECEMBER 2010
Downloaded 20 Jan 2011 to 144.177.100.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
71, pp. 93–106.
关26兴 Mura, T., and Lee, S. L., 1963, “Application of Variational Principles to Limit
Analysis,” Q. Appl. Math., 21共3兲, pp. 243–348.
关27兴 Mura, T., Rimawi, W. H., and Lee, S. L., 1965, “Extended Theorems of Limit
Analysis,” Q. Appl. Math., 23, pp. 171–179.
关28兴 Pan, L., and Seshadri, R., 2002, “Limit Load Estimation Using Plastic Flow
Parameter in Repeated Elastic Finite Element Analysis,” ASME J. Pressure
Vessel Technol., 124, pp. 433–439.
关29兴 Seshadri, R., and Adibi-Asl, R., 2007, “Limit Loads of Pressure Components
Using the Reference Two-Bar Structure,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.,
129, pp. 280–286.
关30兴 Seshadri, R., and Hossain, M. M., 2009, “Simplified Limit Load Determination
Using the m␣T -Method,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 131, pp. 021213.
关31兴 Adibi-Asl, R., Fanous, I. F. Z., and Seshadri, R., 2006, “Elastic Modulus
Adjustment Procedures—Improved Convergence Scheme,” Int. J. Pressure
Vessels Piping, 83, pp. 154–160.
关32兴 ANSYS, Inc., 2008, ANSYS Ver. 11.0 Online User Guide.
Transactions of the ASME