Refine
Year of publication
- 2024 (23)
- 2023 (29)
- 2022 (45)
- 2021 (53)
- 2020 (57)
- 2019 (64)
- 2018 (60)
- 2017 (61)
- 2016 (43)
- 2015 (61)
- 2014 (58)
- 2013 (54)
- 2012 (59)
- 2011 (71)
- 2010 (62)
- 2009 (73)
- 2008 (53)
- 2007 (45)
- 2006 (64)
- 2005 (40)
- 2004 (75)
- 2003 (46)
- 2002 (46)
- 2001 (48)
- 2000 (51)
- 1999 (29)
- 1998 (25)
- 1997 (25)
- 1996 (21)
- 1995 (16)
- 1994 (11)
- 1993 (16)
- 1992 (7)
- 1991 (5)
- 1990 (11)
- 1989 (11)
- 1988 (17)
- 1987 (6)
- 1986 (2)
- 1985 (3)
- 1984 (1)
- 1983 (2)
- 1982 (20)
- 1981 (13)
- 1980 (27)
- 1979 (18)
- 1978 (26)
- 1977 (13)
- 1976 (12)
- 1975 (9)
- 1974 (2)
- 1973 (1)
- 1972 (2)
- 1968 (1)
Institute
- Fachbereich Medizintechnik und Technomathematik (1693) (remove)
Language
- English (1693) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (1359)
- Conference Proceeding (212)
- Book (43)
- Part of a Book (43)
- Doctoral Thesis (18)
- Other (6)
- Patent (4)
- Preprint (3)
- Lecture (2)
- Conference: Meeting Abstract (1)
Keywords
- Biosensor (25)
- Finite-Elemente-Methode (12)
- Einspielen <Werkstoff> (10)
- CAD (8)
- civil engineering (8)
- Bauingenieurwesen (7)
- FEM (6)
- Limit analysis (6)
- Shakedown analysis (6)
- shakedown analysis (6)
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.
ITCE-2003 - 4th Joint Symposium on Information Technology in Civil Engineering ed Flood, I., Seite 1-12, ASCE (CD-ROM), Nashville, USA In this paper we discussed graph based tools to support architects during the conceptual design phase. Conceptual Design is defined before constructive design; the used concepts are more abstract. We develop two graph based approaches, a topdown using the graph rewriting system PROGRES and a more industrially oriented approach, where we extend the CAD system ArchiCAD. In both approaches, knowledge can be defined by a knowledge engineer, in the top-down approach in the domain model graph, in the bottom-up approach in the in an XML file. The defined knowledge is used to incrementally check the sketch and to inform the architect about violations of the defined knowledge. Our goal is to discover design error as soon as possible and to support the architect to design buildings with consideration of conceptual knowledge.