@incollection{StaatHeitzer2003, author = {Staat, Manfred and Heitzer, Michael}, title = {Probabilistic limit and shakedown problems}, series = {Numerical methods for limit and shakedown analysis. Deterministic and probabilistic problems}, volume = {15}, booktitle = {Numerical methods for limit and shakedown analysis. Deterministic and probabilistic problems}, editor = {Staat, Manfred and Heitzer, Michael}, publisher = {John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC)}, address = {J{\"u}lich}, isbn = {3-00-010001-6}, pages = {217 -- 268}, year = {2003}, language = {en} } @book{StaatHeitzer2003, author = {Staat, Manfred and Heitzer, Michael}, title = {Numerical methods for limit and shakedown analysis. Deterministic and probabilistic problems.}, publisher = {John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC)}, address = {J{\"u}lich}, isbn = {3-00-010001-6}, pages = {2, xiii, 282 Seiten}, year = {2003}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{StaatHeitzer2002, author = {Staat, Manfred and Heitzer, Michael}, title = {The restricted influence of kinematic hardening on shakedown loads}, year = {2002}, abstract = {Structural design analyses are conducted with the aim of verifying the exclusion of ratcheting. To this end it is important to make a clear distinction between the shakedown range and the ratcheting range. In cyclic plasticity more sophisticated hardening models have been suggested in order to model the strain evolution observed in ratcheting experiments. The hardening models used in shakedown analysis are comparatively simple. It is shown that shakedown analysis can make quite stable predictions of admissible load ranges despite the simplicity of the underlying hardening models. A linear and a nonlinear kinematic hardening model of two-surface plasticity are compared in material shakedown analysis. Both give identical or similar shakedown ranges. Structural shakedown analyses show that the loading may have a more pronounced effect than the hardening model.}, subject = {Biomedizinische Technik}, language = {en} }