Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

I've searched the forum and found multiple threads on this topic, but not one that directly answers my query.

Within Div. 2 there are two assessment methods for local failure (elastic and elastic-plastic).

The elastic method is a check against 4S. For the elastic-plastic method the equivalent plastic strain is compared with a calculated strain limit. ASME PTB-1 recommends that the elastic-plastic method is applied to all applications.

My understanding is that if performing an elastic-plastic check, to calculate the plastic strain and strain limit, solid elements really should be used. However, this adds time to model build, meshing and solve processes.

Am I missing something, or does this section of the code and the PTB document push us down the route of using solid elements and not shells for all ASME VIII DBA checks?



RE: ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

This particular failure mode generally doesn't occur in thin shells (that you would typically use shell elements for), because it relies on a state of high tri-axiality. But for a thin shell, the third principal direction generally has a stress of negative internal pressure or zero.

Take advantage of the exemption provided at the start of 5.3.

RE: ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

Thanks for the reply TGS4.

Section states ‘it is not necessary to evaluate protection against local failure (5.3), if the component design is in accordance with Part 4 (e.g., component wall thickness and weld detail per 4.2)’.
When referring to component wall thickness, is this only referencing the minimum thickness requirements of Section 4.1.2? I am assuming it does not require the user to carry out the DBR calculations given in Part 4, as presumably this would make the DBA check redundant?

I am actually looking at this from an integrity perspective, so API 579 is the code of interest. Section 2D.3.1 of API 579 states that ‘the strain limit criterion does not typically need to be evaluated if the component design is in accordance with the applicable construction code and the presence of a flaw does not result in a significant strain concentration’.

I think this may also give me a local failure / solid element FEA model get-out clause as I am typically concerned with vessel features which were designed to DBR, but due to deterioration can no longer be deemed FFS via these methods. However, I do not think typical deterioration such as corrosion or pitting would be expected to provide a strain concentration or have any effect on the tri-axiality.

RE: ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

I agree with your assessment.

RE: ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

Out of interest, what would you classify as a significant strain concentration?

RE: ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

A sharp notch or square inside corner, or even a re-entrant corner.

RE: ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

So no there is no magnitude of equivalent plastic strain, or distance over which it extends, that would be considered a significant vs insignificant concentration? Would that also mean that any strain not in the vicinity of a notch is insignificant for local failure assessment? I know most of the testing behind the development of the fracture damage equations were based on notched bar samples but I don't think any of this was ever published by WRC.

Theoretically in a purely triaxial stress state you couldn't support any strain but I am yet to see a real FFS application that comes close, or many that even exceed the triaxial strain limit (definitely not at low strain levels). Could a low level strain limit be used, one that could be considered conservative for any conceivable PV application?

I have come across the significant strain concentration debate a few times, it would be good to have it quantified.

RE: ASME VIII DBA Local Failure

The issue with Local Failure is that at a state of high triaxiality causes the material to act in a brittle manner - which is why the triaxial strain limit plummets when the state of triaxiality increases - there is less and less room for plastic strain. What's most important is not the specific magnitude of the plastic strain, but the ratio of the factored plastic strain to the triaxial strain limit. I call that quantity the Strain Limit Damage Ratio - see my paper here.

The other aspect of this failure mode is that in a state of pure triaxiality, regardless of the magnitude of the principal stresses, the von Mises stress is always zero (if S1=S2=S3, then the equivalent stress is always zero).

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


eBook - Integrating the Engineering Ecosystem
Aras Innovator provides multiple options for integrating data between systems, depending on the scenario. Utilizing the right approach to meet specific business requirements is vital. These needs range from authoring tools, federating data from various and dissimilar databases, and triggering processes and workflows. Download Now
Research Report - Simulation-Driven Design for SOLIDWORKS Users
In this engineering.com research report, we discuss the rising role of simulation and the paradigm shift commonly called the democratization of simulation. In particular, we focus on how SOLIDWORKS users can take advantage of simulation-driven design through two analysis tools: SOLIDWORKS Simulation and 3DEXPERIENCE WORKS. Download Now
White Paper - Industry 4.0 and the Future of Engineering Education
With industries becoming more automated, more tech-driven and more complex, engineers need to keep their skills and knowledge up to date in order to stay on top of this wave—and to be prepared for the Industry 4.0 future. The University of Cincinnati offers two online Master of Engineering degree programs designed specifically for practicing engineers. Download Now
eBook - The Design Gridlock Manifesto
In this eBook, you’ll learn 6 ways old CAD technology slows your company down and hear how design teams have put those problems to rest. “The Design Gridlock Manifesto” shares first-hand modern CAD experiences from 15 companies around the world. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close