Refine
Institute
Has Fulltext
- yes (10)
Language
- English (10) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
Keywords
- Einspielen <Werkstoff> (10) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (10)
Structural design analyses are conducted with the aim of verifying the exclusion of ratchetting. To this end it is important to make a clear distinction between the shakedown range and the ratchetting range. The performed experiment comprised a hollow tension specimen which was subjected to alternating axial forces, superimposed with constant moments. First, a series of uniaxial tests has been carried out in order to calibrate a bounded kinematic hardening rule. The load parameters have been selected on the basis of previous shakedown analyses with the PERMAS code using a kinematic hardening material model. It is shown that this shakedown analysis gives reasonable agreement between the experimental and the numerical results. A linear and a nonlinear kinematic hardening model of two-surface plasticity are compared in material shakedown analysis.
This work is an attempt to answer the question: How to use convex programming in shakedown analysis of structures made of materials with temperature-dependent properties. Based on recently established shakedown theorems and formulations, a dual relationship between upper and lower bounds of the shakedown limit load is found, an algorithmfor shakedown analysis is proposed. While the original problem is neither convex nor concave, the algorithm presented here has the advantage of employing convex programming tools.
In the new European standard for unfired pressure vessels, EN 13445-3, there are two approaches for carrying out a Design-by-Analysis that cover both the stress categorization method (Annex C) and the direct route method (Annex B) for a check against global plastic deformation and against progressive plastic deformation. This paper presents the direct route in the language of limit and shakedown analysis. This approach leads to an optimization problem. Its solution with Finite Element Analysis is demonstrated for mechanical and thermal actions. One observation from the examples is that the so-called 3f (3Sm) criterion fails to be a reliable check against progressive plastic deformation. Precise conditions are given, which greatly restrict the applicability of the 3f criterion.