Nuclear Engineering and Design 116 (1989) 199-213 199

North-Holland, Amsterdam

C R E E P R A T C H E T T I N G T E S T S A N D ANALYSIS OF A PRESSURIZED ELBOW AT 593°C

SUBJECTED TO CYCLIC BENDING

Kevin THOMAS
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Advanced Energy Systems, PO Box 158, Madison, PA 1,5601, USA

Received 20 September 1988

This paper presents the results of an inelastic analysis of a type 304 stainless steel elbow subjected to alternating in-plane
closing and opening bending moments and internally pressurized to 2.76 MPa (400 lb/in2). The elbow diameter was 406 mm
(16 in) with a wall thickness of approximately 12.5 mm (0.5 in). The purpose of the analysis was to validate the use of an
inelastic finite element program (MARC) for the prediction of plastic and creep behavior of LMFBR components at elevated
temperature (593°C). The approach used was to compare the analysis results with detailed measurements of strain and
deformation obtained from a test elbow subjected to the same cyclic bending and internal pressure. The results confirmed the
ability of the MARC program to reproduce, in detail, the complex elevated temperature inelastic response history which
occurred in the test. In particular, the analysis confirmed test results which indicated that creep ratchetting of the elbow would
occur only with respect to local hoop strains at mid-elbow under conditions of reversed cyclic loading and internal pressure.
The analysis was apparently conservative in predicting significantly more ratchetting than was observed in the test. The
analysis also confirmed that cyclic elbow ovaliTstion was stable, i.e., did not show any progressive ovalization (ratchetting).

1. Introduction components (elbows, tees and reducers). The objectives

The major stresses and deformations experienced by
piping components in a breeder reactor are due to
seismic, dead weight and thermal expansion loadings.
Piping system designs to accommodate the stresses due
to these loading conditions normally include piping
loops using elbows to provide additional system flexibil-
ity. Large strain concentrations occur in the piping
elbows with attendant elastic/plastic deformation and,
at high temperature, creep deformation. In order to
satisfy elevated temperature design criteria as embodied
in the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code [1] and the
Code Case N-47 [2], failure modes to be considered
include plastic buckling, creep buckling and ratchetting.
Finite element procedures are available to provide
estimates of the deformation and strain concentrations
for these conditions. However, experimental data on the
elastic/plastic and creep behavior of elbows have
hitherto been limited and insufficient to validate rigor-
ously the analytical methods used in the design of
breeder reactor piping components.
A structural testing program was initiated at Westin-
ghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division COiAESD)
as an integral part of the National High Temperature
Structural Design Technology (HTSD) program to de-
termine experimentally the behavior of critical piping
of this program included:
(A) Investigation of the plastic and creep buckling of
piping components under various load combina-
tions.
(B) Investigation of the high temperature ( > 800°F
(427°C)) time dependent strain and deformation
response of piping components.
(C) Validation of detailed and simplified methods for
predicting deformation response of piping compo-
nents.
Initial phases of this program concentrated on the
testing of 406 mm diameter Type 304 SS seamless
elbows obtained from the Fast Flux Test Facility ( F F T F )
program. A total of five elbows were tested as follows: a
short-term room temperature buckling test; a short-term
593°C buckling test; a creep deformation test at 593°C;
a cyclic creep-ratchetting test at 593°C and, finally, a
creep buckling test at 593°C. All tests were instru-
mented to measure applied loads, displacements and
rotations, strains and temperatures continuously. The
resultant large data base provided an excellent means of
validating methods for design analysis of thin-walled
elbows at elevated temperatures.
The highlights of this program were summarized by
Griffin et al. [3]. The purpose of this paper is to provide
an in-depth presentation and discussion of the creep-

0 0 2 9 - 5 4 9 3 / 8 9 / $ 0 3 . 5 0 © Elsevier Science P u b l i s h e r s B.V.

200 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests
ratchetting test and the detailed finite element analysis.
The test subjected a 406 mm diameter Type 304 stain-
less steel elbow to alternating in-plane closing and
opening end rotations at 593°C. Tests were performed
with and without internal pressure (2.76 MPa). At each
point of maximum closure, a creep hold time of about
160 h was initiated. A detailed finite element shell
analysis, using the MARC [4] program was also carried
out. The analysis modeled the actual test procedure in
full detail, reproducing temperatures and loadings as
measured in the test. Thus, the results of test and
analysis are directly comparable and provide a sound
basis for validation of the analysis method.
2. Cyclic bending tests
The cyclic, creep-ratchetting test was performed in
the multi-load test facility (MLTF) [5] which was desig-
ned to test fuil-scale piping components, under various
loading conditions at temperatures up to 649°C
(1200°F). The MLTF consisted of a large steel frame, a
liquid sodium storage tank and drainage system and a
Fig. 1. General arrangement of the MLTF test rig.
II
82,50-+0.12
II Izog6 ~+3}
II
II
II
II
il
I
I il + 1
i ~ 1~ f~ 24.00±0.06 . . . . 35REF
99,62±0,12 (2530±3}
(3)1. I A 1 o.'~21
~ 16.4}
Fig. 2. 406 mm diameter test elbow.
computer-controlled loading system with pneumatic ac-
tuators. Fig. 1 is an artist's view of the MLTF test rig
and shows an elbow test specimen mounted in the
frame. The test specimen itself is shown in fig. 2. It
consisted of a 406 mm diameter elbow with a bend
radius of 610 ram and a wall thickness of 12.5 mm. The
vertical pipe was welded to a 120 mm thick support
flange which was bolted to the test frame. A loading
plate was welded to the end of the horizontal pipe and
provided attachment points for two load actuators.
Double actuators were provided in order to make it
possible to apply a balanced pair of equal and opposite
forces at the end of the test specimen. A special
arrangement was employed to maintain parallelism of
the loading actuators as the end of the specimen
deflected.
The test elbow was heated externally by electric
heaters attached to the elbow and pipes. In order to
maintain the test elbow at a uniform temperature, it was
filled with liquid sodium. A flexible drain line was
attached to a nozzle welded to the underside of the
horizontal pipe. Instrumentation for the test consisted
of thermocouples, resistance and capacitance strain
gauges, displacement and rotation transducers, load,
 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests 201

moment arm and ovalization measuring devices. Ovali- Table 1

zation was measured using special ovalization fixtures Creep ratchetting test loadings
located at the central cross-section of the elbow and at Test End rotation (0) Internal Hold
the lower end of the vertical pipe. Opening Closing pressure time
(MPa) (h)
2.1. Cyclic test procedure
Series I cycles 0 1.44 2.76 160
Series 2 cycles 0.75 1.44 2.76 160
The primary goal of this test was to establish the Series 3 cycles 0.75 1.44 0.028 160
potential for creep ratchetting of elbows under cyclic
loading with particular interest in the possibility of
progressive ovalization. It was therefore decided to per- tained internal pressure. On the other hand, it was
form detailed pre-test analysis to establish test condi- anticipated that internal pressure would also be likely to
tions conducive to creep ratehetting. The pre-test analy- inhibit progressive ovalization of the elbow cross-sec-
sis failed to show any clear evidence of ratchetting tion. It was therefore decided to perform tests with, and
except with a combination of cyclic bending and sus- without, internal pressure.

40 ~ SECONDMLTFELaOW ~j~
304SS@1100°F .~
Oy = 23.0KSI ~ ~ -- 250
35 Opl= 11.6KSI ~' ~ ~ "

2O0

2,, I- Ic~"~/ _~ ..- ~ m.AW.,,o, OATA

lSO

s.o,o..... _ Ioo

I1 I o , ~ , , o, + , . , . . s ,.,,o , ~ ,
Ir I o ...,. ..., .p.S.TA.O,
10 ~'- / ~ -- LINEAREXTRAPOLATION
]l J I sr~- st.,.
Ill / . POINT I (KSI) (%) --

Ill i~=~1.,.1o+,.s,.,.oo.,, ~, I o o
s li- I A I ..s o.om
II J e I ..o O.lO
!1 I c I z,.s o.',s
II I o I zg.o I.OO
U J E I 3xs 3.00
o ,[,~, I I I J o
0 0.2 1 2
STRAIN (%)
Fig. 3. Tensile stress-strain curves at 593°C for the 304 stainless steel elbow material.
202 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests
A second major consideration was to reproduce
loading which would simulate service conditions in a
piping loop. The most important feature of this is that
cycling is caused mainly by time-varying thermal expan-
sion and can therefore be considered to be displacement
controlled. Accordingly, the loading cycle was chosen to
be cyclic end rotation with a hold period at the point of
maximum rotation. It was also decided to differentiate
between cycles involving only closing rotations and
those going from an opening state to a closing state.
Three sets of cyclic loadings were therefore selected and
are shown in table 1.
2.2. Material properties
In order to provide an ideal comparison between test
and analysis for a specific elbow, it would be necessary
to know the elastic, elastic-plastic and creep behavior
for the actual material in the elbow. Moreover, in the
ideal case, one should know the variation of those
properties throughout the actual elbow geometry. Such
detailed information could obviously not be obtained
prior to the test, neither could it be obtained in a timely
fashion for analysis subsequent to the test. As a practi-
cal compromise, the best data available consisted of
stress-strain curves obtained from test coupons
extracted from previously tested elbows. Since all the
elbows were made from the same heat of material, this
was considered to be reliable data. The test coupons
themselves were obtained from locations in the elbows
which were believed to have remained elastic during the
elbow tests. Fig. 3 shows stress-strain curves computed
as the average of data obtained from several coupons
for the first and second MLTF test elbows. For com-
parison, an average stress-strain curve for Type 304
stainless steel customarily used for design purposes in
the US [2] is also shown. For the creep ratchetting test
analysis it was decided to use the lower of the two
measured curves as a compromise with the design data.
Creep data for the actual elbow material could not
be obtained in a timely fashion for purposes of the
analysis and therefore design curves for 304 stainless
steel were used. These were, the so-called Blackburn
equations [6] with either a single or double exponential
primary creep term.
2.3. Test results
The test, as performed, consisted of five cycles of
closing rotation (Series 1), six cycles of opening-closing
rotation and about eight cycles of opening-closing ro-
tation at greatly reduced internal pressure (1% of Series
lOOO.O I[ IIII
l
~ 0.0
o
II IIIIII IIII IlL
0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0
Elapsed Time (HR)
Fig. 4. Applied moment history for the elbow creep ratchetting
test.
1 and 2 pressures). Fig. 4 shows a time-history of end
moment applied to the elbow. After the initial loading,
a return to zero rotation required an opening moment
due to the generation of both plastic and creep strains.
The moment relaxation for each hold period is dearly
visible and amounted to about 13% per cycle. The gap
in the middle of the time history was due to a planned
shutdown during the test. The second gap was due to an
unplanned excursion which automatically shut down
the test. Fig. 5 shows the time history of hoop strain at
the mid-elbow crown. The strain excursions during the
shutdown periods were due to instrumentation anoma-
lies and do not signify real events. The strain history
indicates some incremental growth in hoop strain dur-
ing the opening-closing cycles with internal pressure.
This did not occur in the initial series with closing
rotations only, neither did it occur when the pressure
was removed (Series 3 cycles). The growth was of very
limited duration and appeared to saturate at about the
sixth cycle.
The hoop strain at the crown is the maximum strain
developed in the elbow and peaked at about 0.36%
which corresponds to a stress of about 154 MPa (22.3
KSI).
The maximum moment measured during the first
loading sequence was 90.5 kN m (803 kip-in). Sobel [7]
has shown that an extension of the Southwell plot
method for elastic-plastic deformation can be used to
 K. Thomas / Creep ratehetting tests 203

7ooo.0L, IIIIII I il IIIIIIIII IIILILi'-' with exact rigid body mode representation and C 1 con-
tinuity. The finite element mesh had also been opti-
6000.0
mized for the M L T F elbow geometry with respect to the
circumferential distribution of elements. This model
5000.0
was therefore selected as the basis for analysis of the
creep ratchetting test. Fig. 6 shows the mesh used in this
4000.0
application. Because the test elbow was subject to in-
plane loading only, it was possible to model only one
half of the elbow assembly with symmetric boundary
conditions being applied to the edges lying in the plane
of symmetry. Based on the work of Dhalla, seven d e -
I11 ments were used around the elbow half-circumference

°.°III
1oOO.O
with eight sets of elements axially. The total number of
I
-I000.0

-2oo0.o 'll I
III Ili Ilill II III I IILI
I1
I!1 LIII
elements was 140 giving a gross total of 2208 degrees of
freedom. Special constraint relations were used to con-
nect the singly curved elements of the pipe to the
doubly curved elements at the elbow-pipe junctions. In
addition, constraint conditions were imposed at the
0.O 1000.0 2000.0 3OO0.O 4000.0 5000.0 loaded end to enforce circularity and planarity and to
Elapsed Time (HR) permit loadings to be specified in a simple way at a
Fig. 5. Measured hoop strain history at the crown of the single node. These conditions were nonlinear to account
mid-elbow section. for finite rotations of the loaded end.
Temperatures were specified at every node in the
model and were assumed to be uniform through the
wall. They were developed by interpolation from a total
estimate a nonlinear buckling load from test (or analyti- of 54 thermocouple measurements of which 34 were
cal) data. Using this method, the buckling moment for located on the elbow. Temperatures were essentially
the elbow under test was estimated as 117.7 kN m (1042 constant throughout the test and were taken as such in
kip-in) (see Appendix for details). Thus, the maximum the analysis.
moment in the test was 77% of the estimated buckling
load.

Y = 48.0 IN, Y = 24.0 IN.

3. Analysis of the tests
ELBOW
As described in the Introduction, a major goal of the

~
MEAN THICKNESS z 0.414S IN,
MEAN RADIUS : 7.|11E IN.
HTSD program is the validation of detailed and sim- SENO RADIUS : 24.0 IN.

plified methods for predicting deformation and buck-

ling of piping components. The creep ratchetting test MEANTNICKNE~ ~ 0.3819 IN.
was the most complex of those undertaken in this MEAN RADIUS" 7.8016 IN.
X = 75.875 IN.
program and also presented the biggest analysis chal- I IIII

lenge. The analysis method had to be capable of com- Ilil

bining the geometrical complexity of the elbow defor-
mations with material nonlinearities both time-depen-
dent and independent.
IIII
3.1. Finite element model
I III
A generic shell model of the M L T F test elbows had
previously been developed by Dhalla [8] using the
M A R C finite element program [4]. The model used the
thin doubly-curved isoparametric element (Element 4)
Y ~
it 111--
IIIIII
/ / / / / / / / / xos,,.
Fig. 6. Finite element mesh for the elbow shell model.
204 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests

3.2. Material model 3.3. Analytical procedure

Ideally, analysis of a multiple cycle loading history
with plasticity and creep should be based on a material
model which simulates the cyclic stress-strain char-
acteristics of the material. The constitutive models
available in the MARC program included classical iso-
tropic and kinematic hardening and also the ORNL
Tenth Cycle Hardening Rule [9] for cyclic strain
hardening. Since only monotonic stress-strain data had
been obtained from the coupon tests, the choice was
therefore restricted to classical bilinear kinematic
hardening. Fig. 7 shows the stress-strain data and the
bilinearization selected for the analysis of the test. The
bilinearization followed the recommendations of RDT
Standard F9-5T by selecting the plastic slope so that it
passed through points A and B at 50% and 100% of the
maximum anticipated strain. This gave a yield stress of
118 MPa (17.1 KSI).
The creep model used was classical strain hardening,
based on the well-known observations [9] that it gives
better correlations with test data under conditions of
varying stress.
As mentioned in § 2.1, pre-test analysis was per-
formed using the finite element model in order to
establish test conditions most likely to induce ratchet-
ting. The results of this analysis showed that ratchetting
did not occur in the absence of internal pressure. With a
pressure of 2.76 MPa (400 psi) there was evidence of
ratchetting in the analytical results and pressure was
therefore specified for the test.
A further question, which could not be answered by
pre-test analysis, lay in which creep equation to select.
In order to obtain the best choice, the first loading cycle
with 160 h creep hold time was analyzed twice using
both the single and double exponential Blackburn equa-
tions. Fig. 8 shows a comparison of the analysis and test
data for Cycle 1 for both creep equations. It is clear that
the so-called 1974 (double exponential) equation gave
far more relaxation than was obtained in the test whereas
the 1971 (single exponential) equation gave better re-
suits. Fig. 9 shows the end moment relaxation history in
more detail. The single exponential equation under-
estimated the primary creep but gave a slightly higher

/
28000

175
24000
/ O.T. ,,,.',,--
2OOOO /I
t ~P
150

125

16000
,.j
lzooe E
t5

8000
N

4000

o| ° I I L I 1 1 l I I o
0.0 0,1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0,7 0.8 0.9 1.0
STRAIN (Percent)

F i g . 7. S t r e s s - s t r a i n curve bilincarization.
 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests 205

1200

t O CYCLE1WITH1974CREEPEQ. 120
1000 •% CYCLE1WITH1971CREEPEQ.
["1 CYCLE1 TESTOATA lOO

8OO

80

600 _ [y.(:::),,~r ''[:)

60

40
i 400 g~

200 ~ _

20

,,~ 0

-20
-200
(~0 MLTFTEg,T 4 -CYCLEI

-40
-400

-00
.,-600 --

-80

I I
-800
0.0 0.2 G.6
Fig. 8. Cycle I
secondary rate. Overall, the relaxation was better pre-
dicted by the 1971 equation.
The detailed procedure for incrementing loads in the
analysis is illustrated in table 2. This shows the history
of the first and second cycles with the end rotations
applied as they were observed in the test. The initial
pressurization to 2.76 MPa produced a slight opening
rotation ( - 0 . 0 1 5 ° ) . The temperatures were then im-
posed which produced a slight change in rotation of
0.001 °. Finally, the end rotation was increased to 1.415 °
which equalled to the total change of 1.431 ° (closing)
achieved in the test. A creep hold time of 159.2 h was
then imposed while maintaining the end rotation fixed
at 1.431 °. Cycle 1 in the test did not return to exactly
I I ] [
0.9 1.2 1.5 1,8 2.1
END ROTATION(Degrees)
- comparison of test and analysis results.
zero rotation and this was also reproduced in the analy-
sis. Cycle 2 and subsequent cycles then followed a
similar pattern with return to a 'zero' rotation under
pressure of -0.015 °. At a number of points in the
loading-unloading sequence, a zero load increment was
applied in order to ensure that any residual loads due to
nonlinearities were eliminated. The cyclic analysis was
performed for the first fourteen cycles only. This was
because the unplanned load excursion (which shut down
the test after Cycle 14) made the continuity of test
results somewhat unreliable after this point. Fig. 10
shows the moment-rotation curves obtained from the
analysis for the fourteen cycles analyzed. The steps in
the plots are due to the residual load correction incre-
206 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests

9OO

MLTF TEST4 - CYCLE 1 CREEPRELAXATION

800

TEST
A

Q.
ANALYSIS -
1971 CREEPEQ.
I

,ofo ANALYSIS -
1974 CREEPEQ.

3OO

g J I I i I I z I I
O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CREEP HOLD TiME (Hours)
Fig. 9. Cycle 1 - creep relaxation comparison.

ments. A striking feature of these plots is the change in
slope for the hysteresis loops corresponding to Cycles
12-14. This effect is due, of course, to the reduction in
stiffness arising from the removal of the internal pres-
sure.
The degree of refinement in loading increments was
dictated by the need to obtain reliable equilibrium
throughout each loading cycle and creep period. A
measure of the adequacy of the refinement was given by
the corrections observed at each of the zero load steps.
Overall, this was judged to be acceptable. From the
economic viewpoint, this was a costly analysis (see the
Appendix for details), but it was felt that adequate
results would not have been obtainable with a less
elaborate procedure.
4. Comparison of test and analysis
4.1. First load cycle

Table 2 Details of the creep relaxation behavior as predicted

Analysis steps for cycles 1 and 2 by the single and double exponential creep equations
Loading step No. of End End are clearly shown in figs. 8 and 9. and were discussed
increments rotation moment briefly in § 3.3. In addition to this, fig. 8 shows that the
(°) (kN m) test data departed from linearity in the initial loading
Internal pressurization phase much earlier than the analysis. In particular,
(2.76 MPa) 1 -0.016 0.0 comparison of the initial linear elastic responses shows
Heat up to 593°C 1 -0.015 0.0 the test to be as much as 21.6% stiffer than the ana-
Cycle 1 loading to 1.43° 13 1.415 83.87 lytical model. Also, the Southwell plot estimate of the
Cycle 1 creep (159.2 h) 11 1.415 66.66 buckling moment obtained from the test was 28.6%
Cycle I unloading to 0.20° 15 0.195 - 17.37 higher than the analysis. These differences in stiffness
Cycle 2 loading to 1.44° 8 1.425 68.40
were not confined to this particular test and were pre-
Cycle 2 creep (157.3 h) 11 1.425 62.83
Cycle 2 unloading to 0.0 o 11 -0.015 - 34.48 sent in some degree in all of the elevated temperature
tests. Reasons for the differences are discussed in the
 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests 207

40O
hysteresis loop for the complete cycle where the test
I f -- 4o
data shows marked nonlinearity in the test data as
ZOO
unloading begins. This could not be reproduced by the
analysis because the kinematic hardening model un-
20O
loads elastically. No obvious explanation exists for the
test behavior. Conceivably, a complex system of resid-
100
ual stresses could produce an effect of this kind but this
can only be speculative based on the current work.
o
Nevertheless, fig. 8 shows good overall agreement be-
tween test and analysis and establishes the ability of the
-100 analysis to model the cyclic behavior in a credible
~ - -2o manner.
-200
r -_3o
-300
4,2. Cyclic end-moment history
- - -40
-400 The cyclic variation of the end moment generated by
-0,02 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0.02 0.03
the imposed end rotations is shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
ROTATIONTHETA-Z(Rediins)
It is clear that both the maximum and minimum values
Fig. 10. End m o m e n t - r o t a t i o n curves (Cycles 1-14) - M A R C and the cyclic ranges were underpredicted by the analy-
analysis. sis. This is consistent with the observations already
made regarding the linear stiffness and the buckling
Appendix but are believed to be caused mainly by moment in which the analysis underestimated the test
testing and equipment uncertainties. results. However, both test and analysis show similar
Another point of comparison is the shape of the behavior with respect to the variation from cycle to

900
400PSI I 100
400PSi CLOSING& OPENING
800 L CLOSINGROTATION D~?A?IflN 4 ~1

700 8O

600

500

400
40
300

"~ 200 2O
100

~ o 0 z
5° -100
-2O
~ -200
-300
-4O
--400
-500 -60
-600
-700 -80

-000
-900 -100
200 400 600 800 1000 1209 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
CREEPTIME (Hours)
Fig. 11. Applied end m o m e n t history - test and analysis.
208 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests

cycle of the end moment at the opening end of the
cycle. The comparison between test and analysis is
better for the Series 1 and 2 tests with 2.76 MPa
internal pressure than for Series 3 with essentially zero
pressure. These results support the applicability of the
kinematic hardening model with a stress-strain curve
based on the elbow coupon data and suggest that cyclic
hardening (or softening) did not play a significant role
in the inelastic behavior of the elbow.
4.3. Hoop strain history
The point of maximum hoop strain in an elbow is
close to the crown at mid-elbow. Fig. 12 shows the
comparison between test and analysis at this location. It
is clear that maximum hoop strains were greater in the
analysis than in the test (by more than 50%). However,
if a comparison is made between cyclic changes in
maximum hoop strain, the results are quite close (within
about 10%). The difference in the maximum values may
be due, in part, to the difficulty of positioning the strain
gauges accurately at the location of maximum strain.
Another contributing factor is the uncertainty in the
actual yield behavior of the test elbow, which is further
compounded by the known variability of the properties
within the elbow. A full explanation of these differences
requires a more detailed set of strain measurements
than was available from the test.
With regard to the creep behavior of the hoop strain,
good correlation was obtained between analysis and
test. For the Series 1 cycles, the test results did not
indicate any incremental growth in hoop strain whereas
the analysis showed significant creep per cycle but also
little, if any, incremental growth. In the second series,
where the elbow is opening to 0.75 °, the test showed
significantly more creep and even more incremental
growth which appeared to saturate by the sixth cycle.
The analysis results showed similar behavior but to a
more marked degree. When the pressure was removed
for the third series, the test data showed a tendency for
the hoop strains to diminish during the hold period. The
analysis, on the other hand, predicted creep growth (per
cycle) but no incremental growth in total strain.
These results are regarded as the most significant
because they show that limited creep ratchetting may
occur if the elbow has internal pressure and if the end
rotations are cycled from opening to closing. If either of
these conditions is absent, then ratchetting does not
seem to occur.
4.4. Axial strain history
Fig. 13 shows the cyclic behavior of the maximum
axial strain at mid-elbow. This occurs at an angular

7000

6000
O MARC ANALYSIS
-o--~,.o..ff.~
-- ~ ~ TEST DATA .....<:r-- ..O'-- ."(>'-
..O"

5000
F
4000

.~j. -.O--

3000 m -

== lOOO O

0
I
I

-1000

-2000 I I i I I L I i I I I
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1900 2000 2200 2400
CREEP TIME (Hours)
Fig. 12. History of maximum mid-elbow hoop strain on outer surface - test and analysis.
 K. "lhomas / Creep ratchetting tests 209
3000
l
2000 ~ - ~ MARCANALYSIS

L
~,--~-- TESTDATA

1000

.w
~ -lOOO
z_
_~ -2O0O

-3000_4000f

_moo I I I I I I I I I I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 24O0
CREEP TIME (Hours)

Fig. 13. History of maximum mid-elbow axial strain on outer surface - test and analysis.

circumferential position of about 80 ° from the ex- contrast to overprediction in the case of the hoop strain.
trados. The difference between the analysis and test is These differences are believed to be due, in part, to the
more marked in the case of the axial strain. The analysis high circumferential gradients in axial stress arising
underpredicted the measured strain by about 30% in from ovalization. The positions of the strain gauges in

0.0 -~ 20

0.6

0.4

0.2 ,t

~ 0.0

~ -0.2
f-+--Z-SS,
-0.4
- A
~ ~-1o
O MARC ANALYSIS
-0.6
m ~ ~ TESTDATA

-0.0
~ _ _ I J__,.,t__.__L l
200 400 690 800 1009 1200 1400 1600 1800 2N0 2200 2400
CREEP TIME (Hcm*+s)

Fig. 14. History of mid-elbowovalization- test and analysis.

210 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests

the test and of the integration points in the analysis did Table 4
not exactly match which, in the presence of high gradi- Accumulated creep strain/cycle
ents, gave rise to significant differences.
With regard to the cyclic behavior, no evidence of Test series Creep strain/cycle
ratchetting of axial strains can be observed either from (1) 0° ~1.44 ° 360x l0 -6
the test data or the analysis. 2.76 MPa
(2) -0.75 ° ~ 1.44° 333 X 10 - 6
4.5. Mid-elbow ovalization history 2.75 MPa
(3) -0.75 ° ~ 1.44° 133 x 10-6
Perhaps the most significant of the comparisons
0.03 MPa
which can be made is for the mid-elbow ovalization. In
planning this particular test it was suspected that a
mechanism might exist for incremental ovalization and
that cycling of an opening-closing nature might induce
such behavior. Fig. 14 shows that for the conditions 4.6. Summary of results
investigated, no evidence of growing ovalization was
obtained. The presence of internal pressure during the Table 3 presents a summary of the comparisons
creep period can be expected to reduce the Ovalization between test and analysis for the maximum values of
(and also the reverse ovalization during the opening end moment, hoop strain, axial strain and ovalization
part of the cycle). Even during the third series of tests and their corresponding cyclic ranges. Quantitatively,
(approximately zero pressure) no evidence of increasing the agreement can only be regarded as fair. Test results
ovalization is apparent. and analysis agree best in the case of maximum mid-
Comparison between test measurements and analysis elbow ovalization, but the ovalization range is signifi-
for ovalization shows good agreement at maximum clos- cantly underpredicted by analysis. This must be con-
ing rotations, but much worse agreement at maximum trasted with the maximum hoop strain results where
opening. The ovalization range in the test is much larger analysis seriously overpredicts the test results but only
( > 30%) than the calculated range. This is the opposite slightly overpredicts the hoop strain range.
result from the case of the hoop strains where the Since the ovalization should be proportional to the
ranges were in good agreement and the maximum val- hoop strain, more consistent agreement is to be ex-
ues in poor agreement. pected. There is no clear explanation for this behaviour,
but it may be a result of unknown circumferential
variation of material properties in the test elbow.
Table 3 The comparison of predicted and measured strains
Summary of analysis and test comparisons was necessarily in terms of the total strain components.
The behavior of creep and plastic strains could only be
Quantity (analysis) - (Test) %
obtained from analysis. The analysis results for creep
(Test) strain can be summarized by creep strain rates on a per
Series I Series 2 Series 3 cycle basis. Table 4 shows the average rates for the three
cycles cycles cycles series of cycles. It is evident that the creep rate is largely
(2.76 MPa) (2.76MPa) (0.03MPa) dependent on the presence of internal pressure. The
cyclic loading with reverse plasticity, produces an offset
Max. end moment - 18 -16 -35
to the steadily accumulating creep strain which is what
Max. end moment
range - 14 - 12 - 23 limits the incremental growth.
Max. hoop strain 36 57 78
Max. hoop strain
range <5 11 16 5. Summary and conclusions
Max. axial strain - 35 -28 -15
Max. axial strain An in-plane cyclic bending test on a prototypic
range - 38 - 30 - 22 LMFBR stainless steel elbow was conducted at 593°C.
Max. ovalization <5 10 18 Creep hold periods of approximately 160 h were im-
Max. ovalization
posed at the point of maximum bending for each cycle.
range - 23 - 26 - 23
The elbow was tested for a total of twenty cycles during
 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests
which an internal pressure of 2.76 MPa was sustained
for the first eleven. Measurements of displacements and
rotations, ovalization, applied loading, strains and tem-
peratures were made and recorded continuously
throughout the test.
A finite element, doubly-curved shell model of the
test elbow was analyzed using the test conditions for
imposed end rotations, temperature, pressure and creep
hold time. The model was analyzed using the MARC
program. The same model was used also for analysis
prior to the test to establish appropriate test conditions.
The purpose of the testing and analysis was tO de-
termine the potential for creep ratchetting of elbows
under cyclic bending loads and to validate the use of a
detailed finite element model for analyzing the complex
elevated temperature behavior of a piping elbow.
The tests demonstrated very little potential for creep
ratchetting behavior in elbows under cyclic bending.
Some growth in peak hoop strain in the elbow was
observed for cycles in which the elbow was pressurized
and also for which the end rotations ranged from open-
ing to closing. Both test and analysis showed that this
growth was enhanced during each cycle by the plastic
loading and reverse loading which took place outside
the hold period. Thus, it may be concluded that ratchet-
ting did occur but that the total strains tended to reach
a limiting value after a few cycles. With respect to
overall deformation, no progressive ovalization was ob-
served in either test or analysis. There appeared to be
no mechanism for incremental distortion of the elbow
cross-section leading to flow restrictions. The presence
of internal pressure clearly inhibits such an effect, but
in the absence of pressure there was still no progressive
ovalization.
Comparing the results of analysis and test validated
the analytical model and procedure in a general sense.
The use of a relatively refined finite element model in
conjunction with simple constitutive laws (i.e., bilinear
kinematic hardening and creep strain hardening) proved
capable of reproducing the detailed cyclic behavior of
the elbow in a realistic manner. The results were rea-
sonably accurate with respect to strain ranges and ovali-
zation. Precise agreement between measured and calcu-
lated response variables could not be obtained because
the detailed inelastic material properties and their varia-
tion within the elbow were unknown.
Clearly, for design purposes, detailed inelastic analy-
sis of components is both feasible and capable of pro-
viding reliable results. Inevitably the cost of such analy-
sis for cyclic loading is very high (see the Appendix)
and can only be justified on a basis of need in specific
situations.
211
Regarding the likelihood of elbow ratchetting in
service, it must be concluded to be quite small. The
range of elbow rotations used in this study was rela-
tively high, loading the elbow well into the plastic zone
(hoop strains on the order of 0.35%) and with higher
internal pressure than would be typical for LMFBRs.
Even under these circumstances, ratchetting tended to
saturate quickly, essentially ruling it out as a failure
mode.
Appendix
1. Test anomalies
Comparison of analysis and test results indicated a
significant discrepancy between the measured and pre-
dicted values of moment-rotation stiffness. For the
creep ratchetting test, the analysis underpredicted the
stiffness by 17.7%. This stiffness discrepancy also af-
fected the nonlinear part of the response and hence the
predicted buckling moment and creep behavior. Four
potential causes were identified:
(1) differences between the assumed values of the elas-
tic modulus for 304 stainless steel and the actual
material data,
(2) external restraint on the test elbow, e.g., the sodium
drain fine,
(3) added stiffness due to insulation on the test elbow,
(4) basic errors in the finite element model.
The possibility of basic errors in the finite element
model was checked by developing a simple beam model
of the elbow with accurate representation of the elbow
flexibility including the effects of restrained ovalization
and internal pressure. The difference in stiffness be-
tween the two models was only 3.5% which was consid-
ered to be excellent agreement.
With regard to the elastic properties, careful mea-
surements of elastic modulus were made on the elbow
material at room temperature and 593°C in an effort to
resolve this question. Using coupon specimens, the mea-
sured moduli were from 4.4% to 8.8% higher than the
values used in the analysis. Applying these modulus
values to the finite element stiffnesses reduced the dis-
crepancy by up to 50%.
It was therefore concluded that the balance of the
discrepancy was, in all probability, due to the combined
effects of external restraint and added stiffness due to
the insulation.
212 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests
Table A1
Southwell plot results for buckling
Buckling moment Elastic stiffness
(kN m) (N m/rad)
Test data 117.7 5.09 × 106
Analysis 91.5 4.19 × 106
2. Elbow buckling load estimates
Sobel [7] describes a method for obtaining an esti-
mate of the nonlinear buckling moment for an elbow.
This is an extension of the well known Southwell plot
method for obtaining the buckling load of a simple
column from test data. The method gives an estimate of
the critical load without testing the column to collapse.
The difference between the present method and the
original Southwell procedure is that the nonlinear com-
ponent of deflection is used instead of the total deflec-
tion. Full details of the procedure are given in [7].
Estimates of the buckling moment were made from
both the test data (initial loading) and also from the
analytical loading curve. Table A1 shows the elastic
slope and the buckling moment estimate for both test
and analysis. This shows that the analysis underesti-
mated the buckling moment by 22.3% and the elastic
stiffness by 17.7%. The larger discrepancy between test
and analysis for the buckling moment suggests that the
plastic slope of the analytical material model is signifi-
cantly smaller than for the actual material. This is
inherent in the bilinearization of the material
stress-strain curve which was based on maximum strains
of about 0.5%.
3. Computer resource usage
In order to convey some understanding of the com-
putational effort involved in a detailed inelastic analysis
of a component subjected to cyclic loading and creep,
some basic statistics for the analysis and computer
resources required are presented. The computer used for
this work was a CDC 7600 with 150 k (octal) of small
core memory.
No. of complete cycles analyzed = 14,
No. of separate analyses (restarts) = 50,
No. of loading/creep increments = 509,
No. of CP sees. used = 63 320.
It is difficult, and perhaps misleading, to assign dollar
costs to these usage figures so the interested reader is
left to interpret the CP usage in terms of his own
hardware and computing costs. However, it can be said
that even in today's environment of supercomputers
and advances in computational efficiency, that an order
of magnitude reduction in CP time is difficult to achieve.
It is most likely, therefore, that similar analyses will
continue to be a costly undertaking and that their use
for the future will probably be most fruitful as an aid to
the development of simplified methods for design pur-
poses.
Acknowledgments
The tests and analyses described in this paper were
performed for the US Department of Energy under
contract DE-AM02-79CH94000, Task DE-AT02-
80CH94049. The author wishes to acknowledge Mr C.C.
Bigelow of the US Department of Energy for his con-
tinued guidance and support of these programs. Special
thanks are due to Dr D.S. Griffin for his overall gui-
dance and the Mr F.R. Peters whose performance and
documentation of the test provided the whole basis for
the study. Many thanks are due also to co-workers Drs
A.K. Dhalla and L.H. Sobel for providing stimulating
discussion and significant contributions to the work.
References
[1] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code ANSI/ASME
BPV-III, Section III, Nuclear Power Plant Components
(American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
1977).
[2] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Cases, Case N-47
(1592), Class I Components in Elevated Temperature
Service, Section III, Division I (American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1977).
[3] D.S. Griffin, A.K. Dhalla and W.S. Woodward, Validation
of inelastic analysis by full scale component testing, Trans.
ASME, J. Press. Vessel Technol. (1987).
[4] MARC General Purpose Finite Element Program User
Manual, Vols. A, B, C, D and E, MARC Analysis Research
Corporation, Paio Alto, CA 94306.
[5] D.N. Elliott, R.E. Homer and F.E. Peters, Structural de-
sign verification techniques, IWGFR/ll, Specialists Meet-
ing on High Temperature Structural Design Technology of
LMFBRs, Champion, PA, April 27-30, 1976.
[6] L.D. Blackburn, Isochronous stress-strain curves for
austenitic stainless steels, in: ed. A.O. Schaefer, Generation
of Isochronous Stress-Strain Curves (American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1972) pp. 15-48.
[7] L.H. Sobel, The Southwell method for predicting plastic
buckling loads for elbows, ASME J. Press. Vessel Technol.
105 (1983) 2-8.
 K. Thomas / Creep ratchetting tests 213

[8] A.K. Dhalla, Collapse characteristics of a thin-walled
elbow: Validation of an analytical procedure, in: Pressure
vessels, piping and components - Design and analysis,
PVP-Vol. 107 (American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, 1986) pp. 95-104.
[9] C.E. Pugh and D.N. Robinson, Constitutive equations for
meeting elevated temperature design needs, in: Pressure
Vessels and Piping: Design Technology - 1982 - A Decade
of Progress, eds. S.Y. Zamrik and D. Dietrich (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1982) ch. 3.3.