Trescas or Mises Yield Condition in Pressure

Vessel Design

Franz Rauscher

Institute for Pressure Vessels and Plant

Technology
Vienna University of Technology
Austria
 Why using Trescas yield condition in a
Design Check?

Simulation

Evaluation of real
behaviour of a structure

Design Check
Show sufficient safety
margin against relevant
failure mode

Conservative approach
EN13445-3: Unfired Pressure Vessels
Part 3 Design:

DBF (Design by Formulas)


Fatigue

Annex B: Direct Route for DBA
with reference to Fatigue (DBF section)
Annex C: Stress Categorisation for DBA

Direct Route

Q Gross Plastic Deformation Design Check

(GPD-DC)
Q Progressive Plastic Deformation Design
Check (PD-DC)
Q Instability Design Check (I-DC)
Q Fatigue Design Check (F-DC)
Q Static Equilibrium Design Check
(SE-DC)
Gross Plastic Deformation (GPD)
Principle:

Design actions have to be carried by a model

with:
Q First order theory
Q A linear-elastic ideal-plastic constitutive law
Q Trescas yield condition and associated flow
rule
Q A maximum absolute value of the principal
structural strains of 5%

Yield strength = RM d (design Material strength parameter )

RM (material strength parameter )
RM d =
R ( partial safety factor )
Trescas vs. Mises yield condition

2
Mises' yield surface with reduced
yield strength
Mises' yield surface

Tresca's yield surface

RM d _ M = 3 RM d
2
One dimensional Stress

Rod in tension
Beam in bending

Limit pressure difference: 15.5%

Closed Cylinder with internal pressure

Closed
cylinder

Limit pressure difference: 0%

Sphere with internal pressure

2 Sphere with
internal pressure

Limit pressure difference: 15.5%

Example: Thin unwelded flat end

Mises equivalent stress

at Tresca limit
Case Limit pressure Max. abs. Iterations CPU time
[bar] value of total [s]
principal
strain
Pure Tresca 71.4 5% 1011 init 23.5 x (Time
for Mises)
Pure Mises 69 4.5% 30 full

Limit pressure difference: 3.4%

Example: Storage tank
Max. principal strains
at Tresca limit

Internal Hydrostatic
pressure pressure
 Results for storage tank
Case Limit pressure Max. abs. Iterations Limit
[bar] value of pressure
principal difference
strain [%]

Internal pressure 1.262 4.58% 2279 init

pure Tresca
0.5%

Internal pressure 1.2 4.3% 15 full

pure Mises

Hydrostatic pressure 3.175 0.34% 260 init

pure Tresca
11%
Hydrostatic pressure 3.08 0.34%
Tresca-95% Mises

Hydrostatic pressure 2.828 3.86% 72 full

pure Mises
 Example dished end

Max. principal
strain
at Tresca limit

Case Limit pressure Max. abs. Iterations CPU time

[bar] value of total [s]
principal
strain
Pure Tresca 17.54 2% 991 23.5 x (Time
for Mises)

Pure Mises 16.36 2.3% 46

Limit pressure difference: 6.7%

Example: Sphere with nozzles

Case Limit Max. abs.

pressure value of
[bar] total
principal
strain

Pure Mises 351.2 4.5

Tresca with 368.2 3.5%

95% Mises

Pure Tresca 371 5% plastic

(CAD-FEM) equivalent
strain

371
PS max = = 309 bar
Max principal 1.2
( DBF : 273.9 bar )
strain at Tresca limit Experiment : 750 bar (2.5%)
Hydrogen Reactor
F
M p, M, F
Pressure Limit

Moment M,
Force F
Pressure p

Time t

p Material:
Shell: 10CrMo9 10
Nozzle: 11CrMo 9 10 NT

M = 285 kNm
F = 60 kNm
Evaluation of Limits for Hydrogen
Reactor

20 021 Elements,
Solid 45:
8-node
isoparametric 3D-
solid,
reduced integration,
hourglass control

Case Limit pressure Max. abs. value of Iterations CPU time [s]
Constant Moment [bar] total principal PIV 2.5GHz, 1GB
Constant Force strain
Pure Tresca 229 1.15 1694 init 7775
Pure Mises 216.4 5.0 46 full 1697

Limit pressure difference: 5.5%

Results:
Case Tresca limit (pressure) / CPU time for Tresca limit /
Mises limit (pressure) CPU-time for Mises limit
Beam in tension and 1.155 analytical results
bending
Closed Cylinder with 1
internal pressure
Open cylinder with internal 1.155
pressure
Sphere with internal 1.155
pressure
Flat end 1.0348 23.5
Storage tank with internal 1.0517 129
pressure
Storage tank with 1.1227 28.5
hydrostatic pressure
Dished end 1.0721 37
Sphere with nozzles 1.0564 not noted
Hydrogen Reactor 1.58 5
Conclusions:
In general:
X Tresca limit may be up to 15.5% higher than
the Mises limit
When undisturbed cylinder or sphere fails under
internal pressure:
X Closed cylinder fails: no difference
X Open cylinder fails: Tresca limit 15.5% higher
X Sphere fails: Tresca limit 15.5% higher
In the considered examples:
X Tresca limit is between 3.5 and 12.3% higher

Procedure for Trescas yield condition would be

needed in commercial FE packages.