Research Papers: Theoretical Applications

Verification of the Linear Matching Method for Limit and Shakedown Analysis by Comparison With Experiments

[+] Author and Article Information
James Ure, Haofeng Chen

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow G1 1XJ, UK

David Tipping

EDF Energy,
Barnwood, Gloucester GL4 3RS, UK
e-mail: Haofeng.chen@strath.ac.uk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 27, 2014; final manuscript received October 3, 2014; published online March 23, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Reza Adibi-Asl.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(3), 031003 (Jun 01, 2015) (6 pages) Paper No: PVT-14-1009; doi: 10.1115/1.4028760 History: Received January 27, 2014; Revised October 03, 2014; Online March 23, 2015

The linear matching method (LMM), a direct numerical method for determining shakedown and ratchet limits of components, has seen significant development in recent years. Previous verifications of these developments against cyclic nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA) have shown favorable results, and now this verification process is being extended to include comparisons with experimental results. This paper presents a comparison of LMM analysis with experimental tests for limit loads and shakedown limits available in the literature. The limit load and shakedown limits were determined for pipe intersections and nozzle-sphere intersections, respectively, thus testing the accuracy of the LMM when analyzing real plant components. Details of the component geometries, materials and test procedures used in the experiments are given. Following this a description of the LMM analysis is given which includes a description of how these features have been interpreted for numerical analysis. A comparison of the results shows that the LMM is capable of predicting accurate yet conservative limit loads and shakedown limits.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


British Energy Generation Limited, 2003, R5: An Assessment Procedure for the High Temperature Response of Structures, Revision 3, British Energy Generation Limited, Gloucester, UK.
Koiter, W. T., 1960, “General Theorems for Elastic Plastic Solids,” Progress in Solid Mechanics, J. N.Sneddon and R.Hill, eds., North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 167–221.
Melan, E., 1936, “Theorie Statisch Unbestimmter Systeme aus Ideal-plastichem Baustoff,” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 2A(145), pp. 195–218.
Chen, H., 2010, “Lower and Upper Bound Shakedown Analysis of Structures With Temperature Dependent Material Properties,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 132(1), p. 011202. [CrossRef]
Chen, H., and Ponter, A. R. S., 2010, “A Direct Method on the Evaluation of Ratchet Limit,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 132(4), p. 041202. [CrossRef]
Chen, H., Ure, J., and Tipping, D., 2013, “Calculation of a Lower Bound Ratchet Limit Part 1 - Theory, Numerical Implementation and Verification,” Eur. J. Mech. A. Solids, 37, pp. 361–368. [CrossRef]
Ure, J., Chen, H., and Tipping, D., 2013, “Calculation of a Lower Bound Ratchet Limit Part 2 - Application to a Pipe Intersection With Dissimilar Material Join,” Eur. J. Mech. A. Solids, 37, pp. 369–378. [CrossRef]
Ellyin, F., 1976, “Experimental Investigation of Limit Loads of Nozzles in Cylindrical Vessels,” Weld. Res. Counc. Bull., 219, pp. 1–14. Available at: https://forengineers.org/bulletin/wrc-219
Proctor, E., and Flinders, F., 1968, “Shakedown Investigations on Partial Penetration Welded Nozzles in a Spherical Shell,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 8(1), pp. 171–185. [CrossRef]
Abaqus, 2009, “Users Manual,” Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Iterative modulus adjustment procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Pipe intersection schematic and dimensions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Nozzle-sphere moment application schematic in (a) experiment and (b) LMM analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Typical stress–strain response of intersection material as reported in Ref. [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Nozzle-sphere FEA models for (a) model A and (b) model B1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Nozzle-sphere intersection schematic and dimensions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Nozzle-sphere intersection FEA models of (a) nozzle 5 and (b) nozzle 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Location of reverse plasticity in nozzle 5




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 eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In