Refine
Year of publication
Institute
- IfB - Institut für Bioengineering (63) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (63) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (38)
- Article (22)
- Lecture (3)
Keywords
- Finite-Elemente-Methode (7)
- Clusterion (5)
- Air purification (4)
- Einspielen <Werkstoff> (4)
- Hämoglobin (4)
- Limit analysis (4)
- Luftreiniger (4)
- Plasmacluster ion technology (4)
- Raumluft (4)
- Sonde (4)
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.
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.
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.