The ASME Code and 3D Stress

J. L. Hechmer Evaluation
Advisory Engineer,
Nuclear Equipment Division. TheASME Code [1] identifies the modes offailure that must be addressed to ensure
acceptable pressure vessel designs. The failure modes addressed in this paper are
precluded by limits on the primary and primary plus secondary stress. Both involve
G. L. Hollinger the transition from elasticity to plasticity. Their evaluation requires the computation
Code Specialist, of membrane and bending stresses {the linearized stresses). The original techniques
Research and Development Division.
for evaluating the limits were based on beam and shell theory. Since beam and shell
theory were the basis of the then-current tools, the transition from analysis results
Babcock and Wilcox, to failure assessment was straightforward. With the advent offinite elements (FE),
A McDermott Company, the transition from the stress distribution to the failure modes requires a different
Barberton, OH 44203
path. For three-dimensional finite element (3D FE), the path is obscure. Since the
development ofFE, theASME Code has made no additions to clarify the correlations
between FE stress distributions and the failure modes. The authors believe that the
Code should provide guidance in this area.

Introduction
Background. The ASME Code [1] places limits on the pri-
mary membrane-plus-bending stress intensity (PL + Pb) and
the primary-plus-secondary stress intensity range (P + Q) to
preclude specific failure modes. The ASME Code failure cri-
teria [2] are based on the fundamental assumptions of beam-
shell theory which are that the membrane and bending stresses
act on a plane and that planes remain plane. The Code uses
a two-dimensional shear theory of failure (plane body), where
the three principal stresses give three stress differences, each
associated with its own plane. Thus, the current criteria require
the definition of three bending planes.
Issues. The Code limits were developed for two-dimen-
sional, axisymmetric geometries and loads, analyzed with shell
theory, where bending planes can be defined and the planes
remain plane. Thus, before determining the membrane and
bending stresses, the potential failure plane is chosen. Under
3D conditions, a single bending plane for all loads may not
exist or a chosen plane may not remain planar during loading.
Therefore, relating finite element (FE) results to the Code limits
raises procedural issues, such as:
1 How should membrane and bending stresses be obtained
from 3D nonlinear stress distributions?
2 What can be defined as a plane when a simple definition
does not exist (e.g., geometry is complex) or when planes do
not remain planar?
3 How should bending stresses be obtained from 3D stress
distributions?
4 Is it valid to use a nonconsistent bending axis (maximum
versus minimum load case) in evaluating the P + Q range?
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division for publication in
the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received by the PVP
Division, January 2, 1990; revised manuscript received December 14, 1990.
5 How much material must become plastic and what is the
shape of the plastic zone before a plastic hinge is formed or
before the material will no longer shakedown to elastic action?
6 Are complex structures more susceptible to failures on
curved surfaces or in volumes of material than on flat planes?
7 Is the generalized von Mises yielding a more rational and
acceptable failure theory for 3D FE stress distributions than
Tresca?
Published Work
As stress distributions become more complex, defining the
membrane and bending stresses becomes more complex. For
3D FE analyses, the engineer is faced with the evaluation of
complex patterns of stress. In the Decade of Progress [3],
Kroenke et al. divide three-dimensional conditions into six
categories. Though these categories are arbitrary, they give an
organized method of approaching the problem. In increasing
levels of complexity, the categories are:
1 asymmetric loads on axisymmetric geometries;
2 perforations in otherwise axisymmetric geometries;
3 cylinder-to-cylinder intersections;
4 noncircular attachments to cylindrical shells;
5 nonradial penetrations and attachments to shells;
'6 general three-dimensional geometries.
As an outgrowth of Kroenke's work [3], the authors initiated
work on defining the issues. In the paper, "Three-Dimensional
Stress Criteria—A Weak Link in Vessel Design and Analysis"
[4], Hechmer and Hollinger explored the issues, with emphasis
on the primary and secondary stress failure modes and their
relationship to 2D and 3D FE results. Three approaches were
discussed for obtaining the membrane and bending stresses for

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology NOVEMBER 1991, Vol. 113 / 481

Copyright © 1991 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

1— „ _ GLOBAL STRESS COMPONENTS
I (X,Y,XY)
LOCAL STRESS COMPONENTS
(r, 1, rL)
PRINCIPAL STRESS "COMPONENTS"
(SI, S2)
GLOBAL AXES (X,Y)
directions varly along line/plane
Fig. 1 Reference direction on a line or plane
3D conditions; stress-at-a-point, stress-along-a-line, and stress-
on-a-plane (Fig. 2). Kroenke had published [5] a procedure to
develop the membrane and bending stresses for axisymmetric
conditions. Kroenke's method develops the load distribution
from the stress distribution. He then determines the average
load and the bending moments from which the membrane and
bending stresses are obtained. The stress-along-a-line ap-
proach, discussed in [4], is based upon Kroenke's axisymmetric
procedure, but Kroenke's procedure is only indirectly appli-
cable to 3D conditions. The three approaches are defined and
discussed in Appendix A.
The paper, "Three-Dimensional Stress Criteria—Applica-
tion of Code Rules" [6], presents a quantitative comparison
of the application of the three approaches, using a nozzle-
cylinder assembly. The study demonstrates that the three ap-
proaches can give substantially different results. The most
complex of the three approaches is stress-on-a-plane. For three-
dimensional geometries, the definition of the plane is subjective
and the resultant stresses and conclusions are a function of
engineering judgment. On the other hand, the stress-on-a-plane
approach should be the most accurate of the three approaches.
The paper, "Code Evaluation of 3D Stresses On a Plane" [7],
investigates the significance of several choices in establishing
the plane.
Kroenke [5] identified a second issue, "which stresses should
be linearized?" In cylindrical shells, there are four component
stresses and three principal stresses. At discontinuities, signif-
icant shear stresses occur and neither the shear nor radial
stresses have linear distributions. High shear stresses also cause
the principal stresses to vary in direction for adjacent points.
Therefore, methods for obtaining the bending stress are not
obvious. As a result, there is a wide range of procedures that
are used for calculating bending stresses; this results in a lack
of consistent evaluation of 3D FE results. The paper, "Con-
siderations in the Calculations Of the Primary-Plus-Secondary
Stress Intensity Range for Code Stress Classification" [8],
addressed this issue; it presents an evaluation of seven pro-
cedures for determining membrane and bending stresses using
a simple axisymmetric analysis and Kroenke's linearization
procedure. Appendix B provides additional discussion.
A common approach to obtaining bending stresses is to
determine an effective moment, based on the load distribution.
The technique uses component stresses to obtain the loads,
because they represent vectors, all of which are consistent to
a specific set of axes (global or local). Two of the component
stresses will be normal to a bending plane; thus, many analysts
482 / Vol. 113, NOVEMBER 1991
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
membrane and bending stresses
integrated over surface or plai
TYPICAL POINT
Y/ / //
'///\
t \/ TYPICAL / / / \
\ \ SURFACE OR PLANE >.
" K//V//A
A V N
membrane and bending sere;
integrated along a line
NOZZLE/CYLINDER INTERSECTION
Fig. 2 Three approaches—point, line, plane
OUTSIDE VIEW IHSIOE VIEU
Fig. 3 Three-dimensional finite element model—nozzle/cylinder inter-
section
opt for linearizing only two of the component stresses. The
principal stress tensor represents three stress vectors, each
aligned with its own set of axes, which may vary from point
to point on the plane. Some analysts opt to use principal stresses
by assuming they are normal to the bending plane. Figure 1
illustrates the local, global, and principal directions.
Example Applications
Three example studies have been performed. The first [6]
compared the three approaches of stress-at-a-point, stress-
along-a-line, and stress-on-a-plane. The results give a global
view of the divergence of results, depending on choice. As a
follow-up to this, a second [7] study zeroed-in on the problems
of defining planes. This study also compares results between
the stress-on-a-plane approach and the stress-along-a-line ap-
proach. The third study [8] addressed the different options for
linearizing stresses. The following paragraphs summarize de-
tails on each of these studies.
The General Approach (Example 1). An evaluation of a
nozzle-cylinder intersection (Fig. 3) was made from 3D FE
results to demonstrate the problems in using the three pro-
cedures. Two general locations were studied; one in the nozzle
and one in the cylinder. All three approaches are used to
evaluate three load cases. Each load case generates represent-
ative patterns of stress which would typically be used to eval-
uate collapse (PL + Pb), or incremental collapse and strain
concentration (P + Q). The evaluation shows the expected
wide variation of results on even a simple geometry subjected
to simple but representative loadings.
For the stress-along-a-line procedure, the component stresses
were linearized along a line to obtain six membrane-plus-bend-
ing component stresses. For the stress-on-a-plane procedure,
different planes were evaluated to show the impact of this
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 1 Summary of Results Table 2 Summary of findings (use of SCL versus plane)
Stress Intensities (ksi) LOADING AND STRESS CATEGORY
Case Description Point Line Plane Pressure Pressure Thermal Thermal
Plane membrane bending membrane bending
1 Nozzle pressure- 37.7 > 32.9 > 32.3-28.6 Ring Signifi- Invalid ap- Invalid appli- Invalid appli-
only cantly un- plication
2 Shell pressure- 43.6 > 42.3 > 40.9-35.0 cation cation
only conserva-
3 Nozzle pressure 54.7 > 32.3 > 29.9 tive
+ thermal'"' Nozzle Good for Good Good Good for
4 Nozzle pressure 60.7 > 32.9 > 29.9 small- small
+ thermal range planes— planes—un-
5 Shell pressure + '47.8 > 42.9 > 41.0-34.1 becomes conservative
thermal conserva- for large
6 Shell pressure + 60.7 > 42.9 > 41.0 tive for planes
thermal range large
'"'Thermal stress calculated by imposing nodal-point temperatures planes
computed from a typical corresponding time-dependent finite element Fillet Good, but Good for Good Good, but
thermal analysis of the model. increas- small potentially
ingly con- planes— unconserva-
servative overly con- tive
servative for
large planes
Shell Good Good for Conservatism Unconserva-
small could be tive
planes— large
overly con-
servative for
'H" MOZZLE PLANE large planes

plane; its location, extent, shape, and orientation. It is im-

*R" MUG PLI.KE
\'• '•"U-"l
*S" SHELL PLANE
Fig. 4 Three-dimensional evaluation planes—ring, nozzle, fillet, shell
arbitrary decision; each plane was established by varying the
circumferential dimension. The membrane stress is readily cal-
culated on a plane, but bending stress on a plane can be ob-
tained in many ways. For this initial evaluation, two sets of
stress-along-a-line results were used to determine the bending
stresses on the plane.
Table 1 provides a summary of results, from which the
following observations are made:
1 The difference of results between the three methods is
significant, particularly in Case 4.
2 The degree of apparent conservatism decreases in order
from stress-at-a-point, line, then plane.
3 The most significant differences occur between stress-at-
a-point and stress-on-a-line. The differences between the stress-
along-a-line method and stress-on-a-plane method are less sig-
nificant.
4 There can be a wide variation of results for evaluation
of stress-on-a-plane. This indicates the significant effect of
choosing various planes and the potential nonconservatism
associated with some choices.
Though not shown in Table 1, the stress-at-a-point method
sometimes predicted a lower (P + Q) stress than the other
two methods. This serves to illustrate that the "banner-of-
conservatism" often carried for the "stress-at-a-point" method
is not always justifiable. This is caused by the total stress on
one or both of the surfaces being less than the equivalently
linearized stress predicted by the stress-on-a-line or plane meth-
ods. It typically occurs at locations of nonlinear gradients of
stress.
Definition of Plane (Example 2). The computation of (P
+ Q) stresses on a flat plane begins with the choice of the
portant to encompass the area that represents a plane-of-bend-
ing whereon {P + Q) stresses are a measure of the structure's
response to shake-down loads, incremental collapse, and con-
centrated inelastic strain. An analysis was made, using the
nozzle-cylinder geometry, to study the effects of varying the
plane definition. It also compared results to the stress-along-
a-line method. A method developed by Hsu [9] is used to
calculate the bending stresses on the planes.
Four sets of evaluation planes are used; they are designated
RING, NOZZLE, FILLET, and SHELL as shown in Fig. 4.
The "points 1, 2, 3, 4" define corners of the planes. Each of
the basic planes is studied with variations in dimension. The
lines from points 1 to 2 are used as the "reference" stress
classification line (class-line) for comparison of results with
the stress classification planes (class-planes).
The evaluation planes are chosen to illustrate the possible
variation of (P + Q) stresses computed for typical locations
in a typical nozzle-cylinder assembly. The choices are limited
and designed to show the trends in computing stresses on planes
of various dimensions and their corresponding "reference"
class-lines.
This study is qualitatively summarized in Table 2. The fol-
lowing conclusions were reached:
1 Class-plane stresses converge to class-line stresses as the
class-planes are made smaller, indicating that the method is a
"valid" extension of the stress-along-a-line method.
2 The relative conservatism between the two methods is
mixed; i.e., neither method always gives the most conservative
results.
3 For evaluation of the ring, the plane encompassing the
, entire ring cross section is required to obtain meaningful re-
sults.
4 For nozzle planes, the class-line does a good job of pre-
dicting the membrane and bending stresses for both pressure
and thermal load. For pressure membrane load, the 45-deg
plane gives 10 percent lower stresses than the smaller planes.
For thermal bending load, the stress increases for planes greater
than 30 deg, making the class-line approach unconservative.
5 The results are mixed for the fillet planes. For pressure
loads, the class-line is conservative, but reasonably accurate

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology NOVEMBER 1991, Vol. 113 / 483

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 for planes up to 30 deg; then it becomes overly conservative.
For thermal loads, the class-line is good for membrane loads,
but unconservative for bending loads.
6 In the shell locations, the class-line results are mixed;
they are overly conservative for pressure bending stresses, and
they are unconservative for thermal bending stresses.
7 This study shows that the choice of size of the plane is
important.
Linearization Procedures (Example 3). The geometry is a
cylinder-to-plate assembly (Fig. 5). Two locations within the
discontinuity were evaluated; these are designated class-line 1
and class-line 2. Neither of these is an ideal plane. Class-line
1 is probably the better representation through the majority
of the thickness, but it is not normal to the inside surface.
Class-line 2 is normal to the inside surface, but not to the
outside surface. Therefore, the analysis addresses a condition
for which an ideal bending plane cannot be defined, but where
membrane-plus-bending stresses are required for evaluation of
strain concentration.
Actually both class-lines did a good job of producing stress
distribution that were close to their expected patterns. Table
3 summarizes the results.
For all four combinations, the hoop (6) and the meridional
(Z) stress distributions are linear. Also, the meridional prin-
cipal stress distribution was linear, except for "class-line 2
thermal" where it is judged as slightly erratic. The shear stress
distribution is generally linear, but it should be parabolic. The
radial stress distribution is parabolic, but it should be linear
for the pressure cases. Class-line 2 does get the correct stress
level at the surface. The surface principal stress, S2, is correct.
Table 3 leads to the conclusion that linearizing the 0-stress
(which is a principal stress for this geometry) and the SI stress
and using the surface values of the S2 stress give good results.
Table 4 presents a summary of the numerical results; the six
methods are defined in Appendix B. It is obvious that the
AXISYMMETRIC FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
different methods give substantial differences in results; i.e.,
the choice of method is significant. However, on the basis of
a single geometry, it is difficult to make judgments on which
procedure is best. The evaluations of the various considerations
give a number of indications.
1 It is logical to linearize only the stresses that are normal
to a plane.
2 When not linearizing a component or principal stress
type, it is reasonable to use the total value at the surface.
3 It seems appropriate to linearize the principal stresses
for cases where the stress distributions do not support the use
of total component radial or shear stresses.
4 The linearization choices may vary depending on the
location and orientation of the assumed bending plane.
5 For this geometry and loading, the best approach appears
to be the linearization of the two normal principal stresses and
the use of the surface values for the through-thickness principal
stress.
Other Failure Theories
The ASME Code uses Tresca or the shear theory of failure;
it is straightforward and simple to apply for axisymmetric
conditions. There are other failure definitions that can be used
to relate 3D FE stress distributions to the Code failure modes.
They may offer improvements in accuracy; however, they have
their own weaknesses. The fundamental question is defining
the onset of a plastic hinge or shakedown. The first of these
methods is a 3D shell theory approach.
Shell Theory. Plate and shell structures exhibit their own
fundamental membrane and bending stress interactions. WRC
Bulletin 250 [10] provides a more accurate method than beam
theory for computing the membrane and bending stress inter-
action in plate/shell structures. It uses the fundamental plate/
shell internal forces and moments in the two localized principal
directions of a plate/shell differential equilibrium element. The
Tresca failure theory is used and the method computes an
interaction failure locus consistent with the Code's primary
stress intensity limits of Sm and \.5Sm.

s
Table 3 Summary of linearization results
Class- Load case e R Z RZ SI S?
line
1 Pressure L P L L L F*
ft- 2
Thermal
Pressure
L
L
P
p*
L
L
P
L
L
L
P*
P*
Thermal L P L L E P*
L = linear (with or without concentration)
P = parabolic
P* ~ parabolic with correct surface values
Fig. 5 Axisymmetric finite element model—cylinder-to-plate lineari- E = erratic
zation study E* = erratic with correct surface values

Table 4 Stress difference SVL

SCL 1 SCL 2
Pressure Thermal Pressure Thermal
Method Ins Out Ins Out Ins Out Ins Out
1 20.0 7.0 30.1 28.7' 18.6 7.9 22.0 25.5
2 22.8 7.0 35.5 28.9 19.0 8.3 22.2 26.3 (w
3 18.2<o) 8.2 29.1 28.9 18.0(o) 7.1"" 20.4(<" 21.9<0)
6)
4 24.1< 6.9<0) (i
37.1 " 28.4(<" 21.3"" 7.5 26.8<6) 24.6
5 19.2 9.1 (6) 31.7 31.6(*> 18.7 7.7 24.2 25.4
6 20.3 7.1 27,1(6) 29.7<4) 18.9 8.4(i» 23.2 26.1
Percent
Max - Min 24 24 27 10 15 15 24 17
Max
'"'minimum values
""'maximum values

484 / Vol. 113, NOVEMBER 1991 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Bench-marking tests using WRC 250 with existing designs
show a mixture of conservatism and nonconservatism when
compared with current Code beam interaction methods. This
mixture of results is not an indication that the method is un-
usable. Rather, it is a more accurate method from which dif-
ferent results are to be expected.
One shortcoming to using this plate/shell interaction concept
in its current state of development, is that it has not yet been
formulated for secondary-type loadings such as thermal loads.
Therefore, an essential step in pursuing its use in the Code is
its formulation for shakedown.
Distortion Energy Theory of Failure. Another approach
might be to allow the von Mises failure criteria as an option
to Tresca. Although Tresca is more conservative than von
Mises, this should not deter us. The Criteria document [2] also
notes the greater simplicity of using shear theory over distortion
energy. The document states on p. 3 in the last part of the
first paragraph under the "Strength Theories" heading: "Most
experiments show that the distortion energy theory is even more
accurate than the shear theory, but the shear theory was chosen
because it is a little more conservative, it is easier to apply,
and it offers some advantages in some applications of the
fatigue analysis." Today, post-processing is so computer-ori-
ented that there is no difference to the designer and very little
to the programmer. A strong case can be made that finite
element output is much more compatible with distortion energy
approaches than shear stress theory; however, there are also
problems in this approach.
There are two cases where distortion energy theory has been
chosen over the shear theory. The first is the elevated tem-
perature creep fatigue rules in Code Case N-47 [11]; these are
based on the calculation of strain-ranges by equations equiv-
alent to the distortion energy equations. Therefore, we have
Code acceptance of the distortion energy approach in the eval-
uation of fatigue. The second is the definition of yielding in
most finite element plasticity programs. Stresses or strains are
calculated by distortion energy equations for comparison to
the material yield strength, followed by changing the modulus
of elasticity of the yielded material. Therefore, a Code plastic
analysis would probably use distortion energy theory to define
the onset of plasticity.
The definition of a bending plane has some problems when
using distortion energy. It is appropriate to conclude that in
the development of a three-dimensional stress criteria, the dis-
tortion energy theory should be given in-depth consideration.
Limit Load. Gerdeen in WRC Bulletin 254 [12] discusses
the state-of-the-art of limit analysis as applied to pressure
vessels. He demonstrates that quite a bit of knowledge is avail-
able for determining the limit load for a few geometries, sub-
jected to specific loads. These are quite useful in evaluating
failure analysis procedures, especially for primary load limits.
However, there are neither sufficient geometries covered nor
combinations of load cases evaluated to consider the limit load
approach suitable for design. For example, a nozzle-shell junc-
ture must be designed for six pipe loads, pressure and thermal
loads, all superimposed. Such complexity is beyond the current
application of limit analysis to design.
Conclusions
The evaluation of Code (P + Q) failure criteria from 3D
finite element results requires extensive understanding of the
technology. The Code and the open literature provide minimal
guidance. Starting with the stress results of a 3D finite element
analysis, many significantly different Code evaluations of PL
+ Pb and P + Q stresses can occur, depending on the analyst's
persuasion. Publication of various examples is needed before
an industry consensus can be reached. Then the Code needs
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
to incorporate guidelines for relating finite element results to
the failure criteria. The total process may require research into
the adaptability of beam theory versus the development of
alternate criteria. Only through consistency in application of
the tools is the "design by analysis" philosophy credible. Work
is underway in PVRC [13] to develop consensus of direction
for development of guidelines for application to the current
Code and for development of direction for future work, per-
haps to modify the Code.
References
1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, "Rules for Construc-
tion of Nuclear Power Plant Components," Div. 1, Subsection NB, Class 1
Components, and Section VIII, "Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels,"
Div. 2-Alternative Rules, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, NY, 1986 Edition.
2 Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Design by
Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Div. 2, ASME, 1969.
3 Kroenke, W. C , et al., "Component Evaluation Using the Finite Element
Method," Pressure Vessel and Piping Technology—1985—A Decade of Prog-
ress, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
4 Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., "Three-Dimensional Stress Cri-
teria—A Weak Link In Vessel Design and Analysis," PVP Vol. No. 109, A
Symposium on ASME Codes and Recent Advances in PVP and Valve Tech-
nology Including a Survey of Operational Research Methods in Engineering,
eds., J. T. Fong, et al., The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, NY, July 1986.
5 Kroenke, W. C , "Classification of Finite Element Stress According to
ASME Section III, Stress Categories," The Winter Annual Meeting of The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Nov. 1973.
6 Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., "Three-Dimensional Stress Cri-
teria—Application of Code Rules," PVP-Vol. No. 120, Design and Analysis of
Piping, Pressure Vessels, and Components, eds., W. E. Short II, et al., The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, July 1987.
7 Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., "Code Evaluation of 3D Stresses
on a Plane," PVP-Vol. No. 161, Codes and Standards and Applications for
Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessel and Piping Components—1989, eds.,
J. P. Breen, et al., July 1989, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, NY.
8 Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., "Considerations in the Calculations
of the Primary-Plus-Secondary Stress Intensity Range for Code Stress Classi-
fication," PVP-Vol. No. 136, Codes and Standards and Applications for Design
and Analysis of Pressure Vessel and Piping Components, eds., G. L. Hollinger,
et al., The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, June
1988.
9 Hsu, K. H., and McKinley, D. A., "SOAP—A Computer Program for
Classification of 3D Finite Element Stresses on a Plane," PVP-Vol. No. 185,
Finite Element Analysis, Computer Applications, and Data Management, ed.,
K. H. Hsu, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY,
June 1990.
10 O'Donnell, W. J., et al., WRC Bulletin 250, "Generalized Yield Surface
for Plates and Shells," July 1979.
11 The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Code Cases, Nuclear Com-
ponents N-47-21 Class 1 Components in Elevated Temperature Service, 1983.
12 Gerdeen, J. C , WRC Bulletin 254, "A Critical Evaluation of Plastic
Behavior Data and a Unified Definition of Plastic Loads for Pressure Com-
ponents," Nov. 1979.
13 PVRC Grants 89-16and 90-13, "Three-Dimensional Stress Criteria," work
in progress.
A P P E N D I X A
The Three Methods of Stress Classification
Three methods are used for evaluating Code limits on PL
+ Pb and P + Q stresses: stress-at-a-point, stress-along-a-
line, and stress-on-a-plane.
Stress-at-a-Point. Stress-at-a-point is the simplest of the
three methods to apply, but it is also the least accurate. The
method consists of comparing the stresses at a single location
(a point) to the Code limit. The stress-at-a-point method can
be used with simple geometric shapes, subjected to simple
loads; its application assumes that the state-of-stress at a point
defines the local membrane and membrane-plus-bending con-
ditions. Obviously, the stress-at-a-point can only define the
membrane-plus-bending if there is no nonlinear stress distri-
bution. As geometric features and loading conditions become
more complex, the use of stress-at-a-point becomes inaccurate
NOVEMBER 1991, Vol. 113/485
 and more remote from truly evaluating the Code's failure
modes.
The stress-at-a-point is usually accepted as conservative, be-
cause the total stresses are usually much greater than equivalent
linearized stresses. When used under complex conditions, the.
claim of conservatism is often used to justify the inaccurate,
albeit simple method. However, cases have been found where
the method is not conservative. Moreover, assuming that con-
servatism is assured, the potential degree of ultra-conservatism
could force unfounded judgment on the acceptability of a
component. Therefore, stress-at-a-point should only be used
where judgment indicates that the conditions are relevant to
the failure modes.
Stress-AIong-a-Line. In an axisymmetric shell-of-revolu-
tion, a line through a thickness represents a surface generated
by revolving the line about the component's axis of revolution.
In such a case, the circumferential distribution of stress is
constant and the same as that defined by the line. Therefore,
the line used in axisymmetric analyses is actually a plane and
stress-on-a-plane is the method used implicitly with axisym-
metric conditions.
Extending the stress-along-a-line method to three-dimen-
sional cases seems logical, but the line is not directly or nat-
urally relatable to any plane. As conditions become less
axisymmetric (structures or loading), the stresses along a line
become similarly less related to shell-of-revolution stresses.
Assuming a local coordinate system can be chosen, the method
mathematically develops membrane and bending stresses,
through the thickness of a shell, which can be used for Code
evaluations rather than using a localized point. However, the
need for a reference plane of bending raises questions on the
relation of the method to predicting failure. The central issue
is whether stress along a line, rather than on a plane, can be
related to limit load or shakedown.
Stress-on-a-Plane. The computation of membrane and
bending stresses on a planar surface is the most complex and
potentially the most accurate method. The mathematics are
similar to that used in the stress-along-a-line method in axi-
symmetric analyses. Actually, the mathematics are an exten-
sion of the stress-along-a-line method. The method uses
integration of stress to get the load distribution, averages the
load to get the membrane stress, and calculates the maximum
bending moment about orthogonal axes on the plane. Thus,
the algorithm to compute membrane and bending for each
component stress can be written.
Even though stress-on-a-plane is the most general method
of evaluation, significant difficulties are encountered in choos-
ing location, orientation, and the extent of the plane, even
more-so than choosing a line in the stress-along-a-line method.
For axisymmetric conditions, the engineer must pre-suppose
a set of three planes of failure which relate to plastic collapse
and progressive distortion, but the planes are well established
by the axisymmetric geometry. The problem for 3D geometries
is that the choice of bending planes is not necessarily obvious;
i.e., the orthogonal coordinate system that will establish the
bending stresses can change with load cases. Therefore, con-
siderable judgment or testing is involved.
APPENDIX B
Approaches for Determining the Bending Stress
The ASME Code [1] addresses the calculation of P + Q
stresses in paragraph NB-3222.2 with footnote reference to
Paragraph NB-3216. The footnote reference mentions alge-
braic signs of principal stresses and implies reference to the
two subparagraphs to NB-3216, NB-3216.1, and NB-3216.2
which address constant and varying principal stress directions,
486 / Vol. 113, NOVEMBER 1991
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
respectively. The linearization procedure (for membrane plus
bending stresses) affects the surface shear stress, which affects
the varying principal stresses.
The Code describes bending stresses as being applicable only
to normal stresses; i.e., by omission, not shear stresses. This
is addressed in paragraphs NB-3213.6, "Membrane Stress";
NB-3213.7, "Bending Stress"; and NB-3213.4, "Normal
Stress." In paragraph NB-3215, "Derivation of Stress Inten-
sities," the Code describes the calculation of stress intensities
with respect to the v'arious categories. A note is provided which
states: "Membrane stress intensity is derived from the stress
components averaged across the thickness of the section. The
averaging shall be performed at the component level." Since
the note refers to component stresses, the Code appears to
exclude the linearization of principal stresses.
Under 3D conditions, algorithms can be developed for cal-
culating a bending moment for each of the six component
stresses or three principal stresses. The key issue is whether a
plane normal to the component or principal stress can be de-
fined and whether this is necessary for the calculation of a
bending moment. To visualize the condition, an incremental
element is used with component stresses (Fig. 6). The following
relates this geometry to each of the six stress components.
Hoop and Axial Component Stresses. Both the hoop and
axial component stresses act perpendicular to two opposite
planes of the incremental element. Their stress distribution can
vary biaxially on their planes. Therefore, these planes are planes
of bending in the classical bending sense. There are no valid
arguments against determining bending for the axial stresses.
However, in shell-type geometries, the hoop stress distribution
is actually an inverse function of the radius, even for membrane
load conditions. Thus, the normal distribution is nonlinear
and it can be argued that the distribution is not indicative of
a bending moment. Except for very thick shells, the nonmem-
brane level is trivial and a linear distribution is an appropriate
engineering approximation. In many 3D geometries, there is
no true circumferential condition, but there will be two stress
components that act normal to the incremental element, with
variable stress distributions.
Radial Component Stress. When the incremental element
is oriented so that a component stress is truly radial (through
thickness) in a constant thickness shell, the radial component
stress is normal to two planes of the incremental element.
However, the radial stress is always constant on its plane. The
stress distribution varies through the thickness which is a basis
for calculating a moment for this component. Thus, bending
can be calculated, but has no physical meaning. The radial
stress in a constant thickness shell is usually small (relative to
hoop and axial) and whether or not a bending stress is cal-
culated will have a minor impact on the results.
Fig. 6 Incremental element
Transactions of the ASME
 Within discontinuities, planes for stress classification are
never both radial to the surface and normal to the meridional
direction. As a result, the radial stress distribution (parallel to
the plane of stress classification) is actually a combination of
radial and axial stress. Another way to say this is that the axial
stress direction does not match the meridional direction, where
the meridional stress is the stress of concern. As a result, the
correct meridional bending stress is obtained when the radial
stress is linearized. Therefore, true radial stresses have no phys-
ical relation to bending, but what is called the radial stress
may be skewed and not truly radial and thus contain a bending
component.
Shear Component Stress. The shear stress does not act
perpendicular to planes of the incremental element; therefore,
the concept of "shear bending" has no physical meaning. Also,
the normal distribution for a shear stress is parabolic, not
linear; again, shear bending has no meaning. On the other
hand, cases occur where there is a nonparabolic shear stress
distribution. This indicates that the axial stress does not rep-
resent the true meridional stress; i.e., the plane chosen for
stress classification does not represent the critical bending plane.
Therefore, to develop a principal stress that coincides with the
critical vector, the shear must be linearized. The only other
option would be to choose a better plane of stress classification.
Principal Stresses. In lieu of using component stresses to
determine the bending moment, the principal stresses can be
used, because they are component stresses in the coordinates
of zero shear stress. The main argument for using principal
stresses is that the question of "shear bending" is by-passed.
On the other hand, arguments against using principal stresses
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
are based on the nonuniform direction of principal stresses;
i.e., the direction of the principal stresses can be different at
each point on the classification plane. As yet unknown, is
whether using the principal stresses is the same as using all six
component stresses before calculating the principal stresses.
In evaluating these choices, one must keep in mind that if the
plane is a true bending plane and if it remains plane, both the
component stress approach and the principal stress approach
should give comparable results.
To have a consistent principal stress distribution, the normal
component stress distribution must be basically linear and the
shear stress distribution must be parabolic or very low. The
main problem is to define a true bending plane. At discontin-
uities, it is often impossible to obtain a plane for bending
where the stress distributions are appropriate over the entire
plane.
Based on the foregoing discussion, seven options have been
defined for obtaining the membrane plus bending stresses for
use in PL + Pb and P + Q evaluations:
1 use all six component stresses;
2 use the three normal component stresses and use the total
shear stresses at the surface;
3 use the three normal component stresses and use the mem-
brane shear stresses;
4 use the two normal stresses that act on a plane (nominally
the hoop and meridional), use the total for the third normal
(radial) stress, and use total shear stress at the surface;
5 use the two normal stresses that act on a plane and use the
membrane radial and shear stresses;
6 use the three principal stresses;
7 use the two principal stresses that act on a plane and use
the total for the third (radial) principal stress.
NOVEMBER 1991, Vol. 113 / 487