Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (122) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (122) (remove)
Keywords
- Einspielen <Werkstoff> (7)
- Multimediamarkt (6)
- Rapid prototyping (5)
- FEM (4)
- Finite-Elemente-Methode (4)
- Rapid Prototyping (4)
- Blitzschutz (3)
- 3D-Printing (2)
- Acyl-amino acids (2)
- Aminoacylase (2)
- Bacillaceae (2)
- Bauingenieurwesen (2)
- Biotechnological application (2)
- CAD (2)
- CFD (2)
- Capacitive field-effect sensor (2)
- Einspielanalyse (2)
- Hochschuldidaktik (2)
- Karosseriebau (2)
- Kraftfahrzeugbau (2)
Institute
- Fachbereich Medizintechnik und Technomathematik (47)
- IfB - Institut für Bioengineering (22)
- Fachbereich Maschinenbau und Mechatronik (20)
- INB - Institut für Nano- und Biotechnologien (17)
- Fachbereich Chemie und Biotechnologie (12)
- Fachbereich Energietechnik (11)
- Fachbereich Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik (9)
- Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik (8)
- ECSM European Center for Sustainable Mobility (6)
- Fachbereich Bauingenieurwesen (6)
- Nowum-Energy (6)
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (4)
- Fachbereich Architektur (3)
- Fachbereich Gestaltung (3)
- ZHQ - Bereich Hochschuldidaktik und Evaluation (3)
- Solar-Institut Jülich (2)
- Arbeitsstelle fuer Hochschuldidaktik und Studienberatung (1)
- FH Aachen (1)
- IBB - Institut für Baustoffe und Baukonstruktionen (1)
- MASKOR Institut für Mobile Autonome Systeme und Kognitive Robotik (1)
Sieht man sich die umfangreichen Betätigungsfelder für einen Projektsteuerer in den Publikationen der einschlägigen Verbände und der Anbieter etwas genauer an, so wird man feststellen, das nach der eigentlichen Projektvorbereitungsphase mit Wirtschaftlichkeitsberechnungen und Sicherstellung der Finanzierung erhebliche Überschneidungen zu den in der HOAI ausgewiesenen Tätigkeiten der weiteren Planungsbeteiligten, insbesondere des Gebäudeplaners, also des Architekten bestehen. Geht man nun davon aus, dass der Bauherr diese Leistungen nicht doppelt bezahlen will, wäre die logische Konsequenz aus der vollumfänglichen Beauftragung eines Projektsteuerers die Verminderung des Auftragsumfangs an den Architekten, verbunden mit einer Honorarminderung für den Architekten. Damit bricht dem Architekten bei eingehender Betrachtung am Ende mehr als die Hälfte seiner Tätigkeit und damit seiner Grundlage zur Honorarerzielung weg. Der Bauherr muss in erster Linie seine Wünsche definieren und sein Budget bestimmen. Er beauftragt die Planungsbeteiligten und nimmt deren Leistungen entgegen. Sein Problem dabei ist, dass er diese Leistung nicht beurteilen kann, weder in Bezug auf deren Vollständigkeit, noch in Bezug auf deren Inhalt. Hier steht der Projektsteuerer im eigentlichen Sinne. Er muss wissen, was die Planungsbeteiligten für ihr Geld zu leisten haben und wie er diese Leistungen durchsetzen kann. Letztendlich sorgt er dann aber auch dafür, das die Architektenleistungen, also Planung und Ausschreibungsunterlagen vom Bauherrn verstanden werden. Warum aber kann der Architekt selbst seine Leistungen und damit den Nachweis der Leistungserfüllung nicht selbst dem Bauherrn verständlich und damit glaubhaft machen? Es liegt also letztlich in der Hand der Architekten, ob ihr Betätigungsfeld weiter durch in die Planung und Gestaltung eingreifende, zusätzliche Projektsteuerer und Generalunternehmer eingeengt oder sogar weggenommen werden kann. Die Frage, wer das Baugeschehen steuert und lenkt bleibt solange ungeklärt, wie die Architekten dieses Tätigkeitsfeld des Architekten im Baubetrieb weiterhin nur unzulänglich ausfüllen können und wollen.
Shock waves, explosions, impacts or cavitation bubble collapses may generate stress waves in solids causing cracks or unexpected dammage due to focussing, physical nonlinearity or interaction with existing cracks. There is a growing interest in wave propagation, which poses many novel problems to experimentalists and theorists.
Improved collapse loads of thick-walled, crack containing pipes and vessels are suggested. Very deep cracks have a residual strength which is better modelled by a global limit load. In all burst tests, the ductility of pressure vessel steels was sufficiently high whereby the burst pressure could be predicted by limit analysis with no need to apply fracture mechanics. The relative prognosis error increases however, for long and deep defects due to uncertainties of geometry and strength data.
Fatigue analyses are conducted with the aim of verifying that thermal ratcheting is limited. To this end it is important to make a clear distintion between the shakedown range and the ratcheting range (continuing deformation). As part of an EU-supported research project, experiments were carried out using a 4-bar model. The experiment comprised a water-cooled internal tube, and three insulated heatable outer test bars. The system was subjected to alternating axial forces, superimposed with alternating temperatures at the outer bars. The test parameters were partly selected on the basis of previous shakedown analyses. During the test, temperatures and strains were measured as a function of time. The loads and the resulting stresses were confirmed on an ongoing basis during performance of the test, and after it. Different material models were applied for this incremental elasto-plastic analysis using the ANSYS program. The results of the simulation are used to verify the FEM-based shakedown analysis.
Limit loads can be calculated with the finite element method (FEM) for any component, defect geometry, and loading. FEM suggests that published long crack limit formulae for axial defects under-estimate the burst pressure for internal surface defects in thick pipes while limit loads are not conservative for deep cracks and for pressure loaded crack-faces. Very deep cracks have a residual strength, which is modelled by a global collapse load. These observations are combined to derive new analytical local and global collapse loads. The global collapse loads are close to FEM limit analyses for all crack dimensions.
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.
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.
Limit and shakedown analysis are effective methods for assessing the load carrying capacity of a given structure. The elasto–plastic behavior of the structure subjected to loads varying in a given load domain is characterized by the shakedown load factor, defined as the maximum factor which satisfies the sufficient conditions stated in the corresponding static shakedown theorem. The finite element dicretization of the problem may lead to very large convex optimization. For the effective solution a basis reduction method has been developed that makes use of the special problem structure for perfectly plastic material. The paper proposes a modified basis reduction method for direct application to the two-surface plasticity model of bounded kinematic hardening material. The considered numerical examples show an enlargement of the load carrying capacity due to bounded hardening.
The load-carrying capacity or the safety against plastic limit states are the central questions in the design of structures and passive components in the apparatus engineering. A precise answer is most simply given by limit and shakedown analysis. These methods can be based on static and kinematic theorems for lower and upper bound analysis. Both may be formulated as optimization problems for finite element discretizations of structures. The problems of large-scale analysis and the extension towards realistic material modelling will be solved in a European research project. Limit and shakedown analyses are briefly demonstrated with illustrative examples.