0
Design and Analysis

# Comparison of Elastic and Plastic Reference Volume Approaches

[+] Author and Article Information
P. S. Reddy Gudimetla

e-mail: p.gudimetla@mun.ca

Munaswamy Katna

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science
Memorial University
St. John's, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 11, 2011; final manuscript received June 12, 2012; published online November 28, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Maher Y. A. Younan.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(1), 011202 (Nov 28, 2012) (11 pages) Paper No: PVT-11-1080; doi: 10.1115/1.4007288 History: Received March 11, 2011; Revised June 12, 2012

## Abstract

For finding out reliable limit load multipliers in pressure vessel components or structures using simplified limit load methods, proper estimation of reference volume is important. In this paper, two empirical methods namely elastic reference volume method (ERVM) and plastic reference volume method (PRVM) for reference volume correction are presented and compared. These reference volume correction concepts are used in combination with $mα$-tangent method and elastic modulus adjustment procedure to achieve converged limit load multiplier solution. These multipliers are compared with nonlinear finite element analysis results and are found to be lower bounded. Elastic reference volume method is the simplest method for reference volume correction when compared to plastic reference volume method.

<>

## Figures

Fig. 1

Cylinder and square prism with a circular hole

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Bulbs of pressure for vertical stresses [12]

Fig. 4

Bulbs of pressure for shear stresses [12]

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Stress profiles of plate with strip load using 5% cut-off stress factor and finite element analysis

Fig. 7

Variation of m0 with various percentages of cut-off stress factor for plate with a strip load

Fig. 8

Plot of m0 versus V¯η

Fig. 9

Reinforced axisymmetric nozzle. (a) Geometry and dimensions and (b) typical finite element mesh with loading.

Fig. 10

Invariant m0 with various percentages of cut-off stress factor for reinforced axisymmetric nozzle

Fig. 11

Variation of m0(VRe) and mαT(VRe) with iterations for reinforced axisymmetric nozzle using elastic reference volume correction

Fig. 12

m0(VRp) in first iteration for reinforced axisymmetric nozzle

Fig. 13

Variation of m0(VRp) with iterations for reinforced axisymmetric nozzle using plastic reference volume correction

Fig. 14

CT specimen: (a) Geometry and dimensions and (b) typical finite element mesh with loading

Fig. 15

Variation of m0 with various percentages of cut-off stress factor for CT specimen

Fig. 16

Variation of m0(VRe) and mαT(VRe) with iterations of CT specimen using elastic reference volume correction

Fig. 17

m0(VRp) in first iteration for CT specimen

Fig. 18

Variation of m0(VRp) and mαT(VRp) with iterations for CT specimen using plastic reference volume correction

Fig. 19

Schematic of oblique nozzle geometry and dimensions

Fig. 20

Finite element mesh of oblique nozzle 30 deg: (a) Isometric view and (b) front view

Fig. 21

Variation of m0 with various percentages of cut-off stress factor for oblique nozzle 30 deg

Fig. 22

Variation of m0(VRe) and mαT(VRe) with iterations for oblique nozzle 30 deg using elastic reference volume correction

Fig. 23

m0(VRp) in first iteration for oblique nozzle 30 deg

Fig. 24

Variation of m0(VRp) and mαT(VRp) with iterations of plate with a hole using plastic reference volume correction

## Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections