Design-By-Analysis

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 3

Design-By-Analysis

© All Rights Reserved

- Syllabus AD (2)
- Plastic Design in Steel (1957)
- Stress Analysis of Rupture Disk
- Prediction of Fatigue Crack Initiation Life in Railheads Using Finite Element-grupo 9
- 2014 OTC Dynamic Plastic Deformation of Deepwater Steel Catenary Risers Under Extreme Cyclic Compressive Loading
- SAP2000 comprobacion
- Finite Element Analysis and Life Estimation of a Permanent
- ch07_Q&A_HW8
- Civil Code
- Syllabus a Diploma
- Composite Analysis
- Plastic and Elastic Responses of a Jacket Platform Subjected to Ship Impacts
- JPPS2.2
- Plastic Design of Laterally Patch Loaded Plates for Ships
- CHAPTER 1- 1D AND 2D LINEAR STRESS STRAIN (BASIC SOLID MECHANICS)
- Applicability of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis on Rocking Structures
- TOPIC 3 Mechanic structure
- 6. Tensile Testing I Handout
- Plasticity
- june_06_FAB

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

M. Staata,*, M. Heitzerb, H. Langc, K. Wirtzc

a

Fachhochschule Aachen Div. Jülich, Ginsterweg 1, 52428 Jülich, Germany

b

Zentralinstitut für Mathematik, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany

c

Framatome ANP GmbH, NDM5, Freyeslebenstr. 1, 91056 Erlangen, Germany

Received 5 March 2004; revised 20 April 2004; accepted 20 April 2004

Abstract

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.

q 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Design-by-analysis; Shakedown analysis; Progressive plastic deformation; Alternating plasticity; Shakedown criterion

1. Introduction The paper generalizes the direct route in Ref. [4] by use of

advanced LISA. The examples in Ref. [5] and in this paper

In the new European standard for unfired pressure show that the 3f (3Sm) criterion [1,2] does not generally

vessels, EN 13445-3, [1], there are two approaches for a represent a conservative shakedown criterion. A new

Design-by-Analysis (DBA), that cover both the stress criterion is theoretically justified.

categorization method (Annex C) and the direct route

method (Annex B). The stress categorization method is an

elastic route to the assessment of inelastic structural failure. 2. Procedures for direct DBA

The total elastic stress is considered to be composed of three

different stress categories: primary sP ; secondary sQ ; and The direct route calculates the design resistance (limit

peak sF : Admissibility is shown if the linearized stress action) with respect to ultimate limit states of the structure.

categories do not exceed the limits in the code rules (ASME Design checks are designated by failure modes. The

Pressure Vessel and Boiler Code [2] or EN 13445-3 [1]). following ones are included in the first issue of EN

This stress categorization extrapolates limit and shakedown 13445-3 Annex B [1,4]:

analysis (LISA) for simple beam and thin shell structures

to complex geometries [3,4] which can hardly be † Global Plastic Deformation (GPD), with excessive local

recommended. strains and ductile rupture.

The new direct route by elasto-plastic calculation in † Progressive Plastic Deformation (PD), with incremental

prEN 13445-3 Annex B [1] seems to be the more promising collapse (incremental GPD, ratchetting, cyclic creep).

alternative. For the time being, it is restricted to sufficiently † Instability (I), with large displacements (buckling).

ductile steels and steel castings below the creep range. † Fatigue (F), with alternating plasticity (AP) and with

high cycle fatigue, i.e. fatigue with and without

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 49-2461-613-437; fax: þ 49-2461-

613-133.

macroscopic plastification.

E-mail addresses: m.staat@fh-aachen.de (M. Staat), m.heitzer@ † Static Equilibrium (SE), with possible overturning and

fz-juelich.de (M. Heitzer). rigid body movement.

0308-0161/$ - see front matter q 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2004.04.006

62 M. Staat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 61–67

Actions denote in Ref. [1] all thermo-mechanical demonstrated that the difference in shakedown analyses for

quantities imposed on the structure causing stress or strain. some linear and nonlinear kinematic hardening models is

Actions are classified by their variation in time: permanent smaller than could be expected from cyclic analyses with

ðGÞ; variable ðQÞ; exceptional ðEÞ; and operating pressures such models [6].

and temperatures ðp; TÞ: Partial safety factors g are used in

the GPD check for each action to obtain their design values 3.1. Check against global plastic deformation (GPD)

and to define their combined design effect Ed ;

Static theorems are formulated in terms of stress. They

Ed ¼ Ed ðgG G; gp p; gT T; gQ Q; …Þ: ð1Þ

define safe structural states leading to an optimization

With the partial safety factor gR for the resistance R of problem for safe monotonic and cyclic loads. The maximum

the structure, the design strength Rd ; and the effects Ed are safe action is the limit load (avoiding GPD) and the elastic

compared in the design check shakedown load (avoiding PD and AP), respectively.

RðG; p; T; Q; …Þ For the LISA approach inequality (2) is not well defined,

Ed # Rd ¼ ; ð2Þ because the design effect is a collection of incompatible

gR

design quantities: scalar temperatures Td ; vector volume

which is performed directly in actions with LISA. The forces qd in volume V, and vector surface traction pd on the

notion of a design strength has been used in Refs. [1,4] but is traction boundary ›Vs with unit normal vector n: Let us

not used any more in the present [1]. assume that the most unfavourable actions have been

combined to a single design action vector Ad ¼ ðqd ; pd Þ:

2.1. Material models in DBA routes Then-in the sense of the GPD check—the action is

admissible if the yield condition

In Refs. [1,4] perfectly plastic materials models are used

FT ðsÞ # Rd in V ð4Þ

for LISA in DBA. However, a closer look at the code rules

shows that hardening is indirectly taken into account is satisfied with the design resistance Rd (allowable stress)

through the dependence of the partial safety factor on the and the Tresca yield function FT : Trivially the structure

ratio Rp0:2=t =Rm=20 in the GPD check. Hardening can provide must be in static equilibrium, i.e.

some additional safety margin, which could be estimated by

advanced LISA with kinematic hardening material models 2divs ¼ as qd in V; nT s ¼ as pd on ›Vs : ð5Þ

[6]. Depending on the steel and on the analysis conditions These conditions can be stated in words as the

different design strengths f are used in the stress categor-

ization route such as Static limit load theorem: An elastic – plastic structure

Rp0:2=t Rm=20 will not collapse (GPD) under a monotonic effect as Ad ; if

f ¼ min ; ð3Þ it is in static equilibrium and if the yield function is

1:5 2:4

nowhere violated.

for, e.g. ferritic steels [1] with Rp0:2=t at design temperature t

and Rm=20 at 20 8C. Traditionally the GPD check has to be For each stress field s; which fulfills the conditions of the

performed with the more conservative Tresca yield surface static theorem, as is a safety factor, so that the load-carrying

FT ðsÞ ¼ Rd ; whereas the PD check uses the more realistic capacity of the structure is not yet exhausted if as $ 1:

von Mises yield surface FM ðsÞ ¼ Rd : The numerical Then the design check of inequality (2) is replaced by the

difficulties in FEA with the non-smooth Tresca yield condition as $ 1:

surface are avoided in Refs. p[1,4] ﬃﬃ by reducing the von

Mises limit conservatively by 3=2: max as

s:t: FT ½asE ðx; tÞ þ rðxÞ # Rd ðxÞ in V;

ð6Þ

3. Lower bound LISA divrðxÞ ¼ 0 in V;

nT rðxÞ ¼ 0 on ›Vs :

Checks against failure modes GPD and PD may be

directly performed by LISA based on Melan’s static or This maximization problem is discretized by FEM and

lower bound theorem. Conservatively the code [1] requires solved for monotonic time history (i.e. sE ðx; tÞ ¼ sE ðxÞ in

the use of a perfectly plastic material model and the side- (6)) effectively with optimization algorithms [8,9]. A large

condition that the maximum absolute value of the principal as can be used to improve the design.

strains does not exceed 5%. It could be asked if the simple It should be clearly stated that, without restrictions, this

perfectly plastic model allows a conservative estimation of limit load is truly independent of load history, elastic data

the plastic strain accumulation during ratchetting, because and self-equilibrated stress (secondary stress). This state-

all known cyclic plasticity models fail on one or more ment is slightly modified if the side-condition on the

material ratchetting experiments [7]. However, it is easily maximum absolute value (5%) of the principal strains is

M. Staat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 61–67 63

considered. Five examples in Ref. [4] have been analysed Static shakedown theorem: An elastic –plastic structure

with the methods cited in Section 4, see Ref. [10]. The will not fail with macroscopic plasticity (PD, AP, and

reduction of the limit load by the strain limit was well within GPD as special case) under time variant actions in as L if

the numerical differences between the FEM analyses in all a time-invariant residual stress field r can be found such

cases. that the structure is in static equilibrium and the yield

function is nowhere and at no instance violated. Then the

3.2. Check against progressive plastic deformation (PD) plastic deformation rates tend to zero.

Strictly, only one load case can be checked by limit Strictly, an independent fatigue analysis must show that

analysis. Design checks should be performed by shakedown the plastic dissipation is bounded. Again one is interested in

analysis, if actions are time-variant. The time history of an the largest factor as ; for which the structure shakes down to

action AðtÞ ¼ ðqðtÞ; pðtÞ; TðtÞÞ is often not well-known. It can asymptotically elastic behaviour.

however usually be stated that the actions vary within given The same conditions as in the limit load theorems must

amplitudes or admissible bounds. They define a convex load be satisfied simultaneously at all times. Their examination

range L: If NV is the number of independent actions in infinitely many instants is impossible and in addition,

A1 ; …; Aj ; …; ANV ; varying in the bounds j2 0

j Aj # Aj # jj

þ

unnecessary. One can show that it is sufficient to satisfy the

Aj with the reference load Aj ; respectively, then all actions

0 0

shakedown conditions only in the NV basis actions A1 ; …;

AðtÞ [ L can be represented by convex combination of NV ANV of L since the shakedown theorems lead to convex

vertices Aj of L; see Fig. 1, optimization problems:

X

NV s:t: FM ðas sEj ðxÞ þ rðxÞÞ # R in V; j ¼ 1; …; NV

ð7Þ

with 0 # lj ; lj ¼ 1: divrðxÞ ¼ 0 in V;

j¼1

nT rðxÞ ¼ 0 on ›Vs :

The load-carrying capacity is exhausted by enlargement

E

of L with the factor a . 1 causing PD, AP or GPD. The By s ¼ sEj

the optimization problem of Eq. (6) is

shakedown theory analyzes only the shakedown state. The obtained with the only change that now the constraints have

shakedown theorems answer the question, whether a to be satisfied for all j ¼ 1; …; NV simultaneously. It is not

structure from ductile material is plastically safe or not. sufficient to examine the critical load cases independently,

Generally, a structure under a load range L shakes down, if because the shakedown analysis of L and the limit analysis

a time-invariant residual stress field rðxÞ can be found such of the critical load cases (vertices of L) may give different

that the time-variant stress field sðx; tÞ ¼ sE ðx; tÞ þ rðxÞ is results. PD is considered less critical than GPD, because it

statically admissible and the yield condition is fulfilled for evolves over many cycles and can therefore be discovered

all loads in L; in other words by in-service inspections. Therefore, the ASME code [2]

Fig. 1. Interaction diagram by FEA for a thin pipe and convex load domains L for pressure and temperature actions.

64 M. Staat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 61–67

and EN 13445-3 [1] do not use safety factors in the PD linear elastic finite element analyses (FEA). Thus design

check. variants may be compared and an optimum choice be made.

Different to limit analysis the shakedown theorems are A comparison with Ref. [1] is discussed in Ref. [10] for two

more complicated for hardening material. In DBA there is problems with purely mechanical actions.

currently no need for such complications, because the

present code requirements are restricted to perfectly plastic 4.1. Thin pipe

material [1,4]. It should be pointed out that different to limit

analysis, shakedown analysis does not apply if the A thin pipe with the ratio t=R1 ¼ 0:1 between inner radius

elastically calculated stress field contains singularities. R1 and the thickness t is subjected to pressure and thermal

The standard [1] (Annex B.3.9.3.2) states that the check gradient. The pipe is discretized by an axisymmetric ring

against PD can be performed for a stress-concentration-free element with quadrilateral cross section with 4 nodes. The

structure, such that sharp corners have to be removed element is subjected to axisymmetric mechanical and

eventually from the FEM models. thermal actions by inner pressure p and by slowly varying

temperatures. The outer temperature Ta is assumed to be

3.3. Check against alternating plasticity (AP) zero such that the thermal difference Ti 2 Ta corresponds to

the inner temperature Ti : A linear temperature distribution

The optimization problem (7) (i.e. the PD check), in the thin shell and temperature independent material data

includes a check against AP, which is accepted in the are assumed. The following load cases L are considered

DBA manual ([4], p. 2.40), because it is conservative. The (see Fig. 1):

proof of shakedown is easier to perform than cyclic plastic

analyses in a PD check. Shakedown analysis can distinguish LC1: Pressure p and temperature difference T vary

between AP and PD [11], by a well known application of the simultaneously with a proportionality factor

shakedown theorem (see [12]). In the AP check, the yield (one-parameter action) with two load vertices

condition FM ½as sEj ðxÞ þ rðxÞ # R for the load domain L P1 ¼ ð0; 0Þ; P2 ¼ ðp; TÞ:

with NV load vertices can be replaced by using the bounds LC2: The pressure p and T vary independently (two-

j ; jj for the load vertices Aj where all combinations of the

jþ 2

parameter action) with four load vertices P1 ¼

signs ^ are to be accounted for (Eq. (4.39) on p. 51 of ðp; 0Þ; P2 ¼ ðp; TÞ; P3 ¼ ð0; TÞ; P4 ¼ ð0; 0Þ:

Ref. [12]): GPD: The collapse pressure p is obtained under mono-

2 3 tonic action with only one load vertex P1 ¼ ðp; 0Þ:

1 X

NV

FM 4 ^ ðjþ 2 E 5

j 2 jj Þas sj ðxÞ # R: ð8Þ

2 j¼1 Fig. 1 shows the calculated interaction diagrams of the

cases LC1 and LC2. The pressure and temperature actions

are normalised to the yield pressure and temperature,

respectively. In LC1 the shakedown factor is 2 until the

4. Direct DBA by LISA pressure reaches the collapse pressure. The temperature

action may have an influence on the limit load only through

It is the objective of shakedown analysis to demonstrate a change of the resistance RðTÞ: It is not a load, because the

that the structure shakes down to stable elastic behaviour thermal stresses are residual stresses. In the case of pure

after few initial plastic cycles and to compute the related mechanical loads the analytical limit pressure Plimit ¼

safety margins. The DBA Manual [4] uses two methods for 0:11sy exceeds the yield pressure Pelast ¼ 0:10sy by 10%.

shakedown analysis that do not employ standard optimiz- The load cases LC1 and LC2 and their interaction diagrams

ation procedures: elastic compensation ([13,14]) and differ from the classical Bree diagram (constant primary

deviatoric map [15]. We have implemented LISA into the load) of a thin pipe under constant pressure and cyclic

general purpose FEM program PERMAS [16] employing temperature.

sequential quadratic programming together with an iteration

in a subspace of the space of residual stresses. This method 4.2. Pipe with non-symmetric thermal gradient

can handle very large optimization problems [17] and has

been generalized to kinematic hardening materials in Ref. The example consists of a pressurized closed pipe with

[9]. FEM-based LISA may be used to compute interaction inner radius R1 and outer radius R2 with R2 =R1 ¼ 1:2 which

diagrams for any complex component. Such diagrams show is subjected to thermal gradients induced by a stratification

the allowable load range for a structure and are used to of the two-phase flow in the interior of the horizontal pipe.

decide on the design load range. For demonstration it is For the shakedown analysis five load vertices are chosen

assumed that all partial safety factors are unity in the GPD from the data set of given temperature distributions with the

check, i.e. g ¼ 1: Inconsistent results are avoided by use of highest temperature Tmax : The temperature actions Tj are

the von Mises yield function also for limit analysis. The applied as temperature differences DTj ¼ Tj 2 50 8C. The

analyses may be performed at computing costs of only 3 – 10 load domain L is spanned by five independent load vertices

M. Staat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 61–67 65

Fig. 2. Interaction diagram by FEA for a pipe with cyclic thermal gradients from stratified two-phase flow over steady internal pressure and example

temperature distribution.

which makes an illustration impossible. A good fit for the range be twice as large as the elastic range but not larger

temperature dependent yield stress in the given temperature than the limit load range. It is surprising that the 3f-criterion

range is is offered for a general shakedown check, because it seems

to have its origin in a simplified argument for the shakedown

sy ðTÞ ¼ 198:0 2 0:2 8C 21 ·T ½MPa: check against AP only. A hysteresis loop occurs for perfect

After the first shakedown analysis the maximum plasticity and kinematic hardening material if sE . Rp02 :

temperature is estimated and the temperature dependent One can state that AP occurs if the total strain exceeds twice

material data are updated. The temperature independent the elastic strain at first yielding. Comparison with the

material data are taken at 300 8C, i.e. E ¼ 179 GPa, interaction diagrams Figs. 1 and 2 however demonstrates

n ¼ 0:3; aT ¼ 1:7 £ 1027 K21. that the use of the 3f-criterion can hardly be recommended,

Fig. 2 illustrates the highest admissible temperature because the shakedown range is typically much smaller with

differences DTmax ¼ 244 8C for the different constant the exception of proportional actions in LC1. If the

pressures. The calculated limit pressure 29.0 MPa is close shakedown analysis is restricted to an AP check then

to the exact thick pipe solution 29.1 MPa. Following the twice the elastic yield is obtained as a limit also for two-

standard [1] the limit actions for PD become never effective parameter actions in LC2 [11]. More precisely, we can

in all examples in Ref. [4], because the GPD limits are state the

typically

pﬃﬃ much lower after reduction by division with

2gp gR = 3 for dominating mechanical actions. This indirect Static shakedown criterion for local failure: An

safety margin is lost in shakedown checks under dominating elastic –plastic structure will not fail locally with

thermal actions, because the secondary stress sQ is not macroscopic alternating plasticity (AP) under time

limited in the GPD check. variant actions with proportional change of all actions,

if the elastically computed equivalent stress range

nowhere exceeds twice the initial yield stress range.

5. Recommendations for the codes rules

This follows immediately from the classical alternating

With the design strength f, the 3f-criterion Ds # 3f ; see

E plasticity criterion applied to proportional loading by setting

Ref. [1] (3Sm in Ref. [2]), for elastically computed total NV ¼ 1; jþ 1 ¼ 1j1 in Eq. (8). On the other hand, if in the

stress range DsE ¼ DðsP þ sQ Þ combined with the limit structure the PD mode is decisive the proposed criterion is

load criterion for the primary membrane stress sPm and invalid. In practice, it is not known in advance, which failure

primary stress sP can be derived (Eq. (3)) mode will occur in a structure. From a mathematical point of

view, the AP criterion and the elastic shakedown criterion

2

DðsP þ sQ Þ # 3f ¼ 2Rp0:2 ; sPm # f ¼ R for unbounded kinematic hardening material are identical in

3 p0:2 ð9Þ the case of proportional loading, such that this material

and sP # 1:5f ¼ Rp0:2 : model is not capable of modeling incremental collapse. In

Ref. [6] an example of a rotating disk under a radial

This is equivalent to the statement that it is necessary for temperature distribution and an angular velocity v is given

the structure to shakedown elastically that the shakedown where the disk fails under proportional volume loading due

66 M. Staat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 61–67

to PD for a perfectly plastic material. For purely mechanical actions dominate, because then the partial safety factors

loading v the shakedown factor is lower than 2, such that and the Tresca yield function make the GDP check usually

it is clear that this factor cannot be applied to proportional more restrictive than the 3f criterion. As the new direct

loading in general. route for DBA deals directly with the plastic failure modes,

Therefore, DsE ¼ DðsP þ sQ þ sF Þ in Eq. (9), such that the results give better insight for the analyst into the

the AP check structural behaviour under all possible mechanical or

2 thermal actions, the safety margins, and the possibilities

DðsP þ sQ þ sF Þ # 2Rp0:2 ; sPm # R for design or operation improvement. LISA can be

3 p0:2 ð10Þ performed directly by optimization procedures

and sP # Rp0:2 implemented in an FEM code. In fact, the costs and

simplicity of LISA compare favourably with standard

follows with peak stress sF : Heuristic arguments are given elastic FEA. Therefore, there is little argument to retain the

by a figure in Ref. [3] or by the deviatoric map in Ref. [4]. stress classification route with the inherent problems of that

The proof shows that there is no benefit from kinematic concept.

hardening for the safety of a structure under the conditions

of the above criterion. Therefore, 3f has to be replaced

strictly by 2Rp0:2 in the criterion, i.e. there should be no Acknowledgements

indirect contribution of Rm in Eq. (3) to the design strength.

The local character of the failure shows that the conditions We would like to thank J.L. Zeman, Vienna Technical

of the criterion should include also the nonsingular peak University, for discussing the PD check in prEN 13445-3.

stress sF : Moreover, the criterion cannot be applied if the This work has been partly supported by the European

structure fails globally with PD, except for the case of Commission through their Brite-EuRam III Programme

actions that cause purely secondary stresses sQ (purely (Project BE 97-4547, Contract BRPR-CT97-0595).

secondary action).

elastic –plastic structure will not fail with macroscopic

plasticity (PD or AP) under proportional time variant [1] Unfired pressure vessel standard EN 13445, Part 3: Design, Annex

thermal action with zero mechanical actions, if the BDirect route for design by analysis and Annex C Stress

elastically computed equivalent stress range nowhere categorisation route for design by analysis. European Committee for

exceeds twice the initial yield stress range. Standardization (CEN), EN 13445-3, Issue 1, May 2002.

[2] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Rules for

Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Div. 1, Subsection

Applying the static shakedown criterion for local failure NB, Class 1 Components, and Section VIII, Rules for Construction of

the shakedown load factor as can be at most 2. The elastic Pressure Vessels, Div. 1 and 2. New York: The American Society of

stresses sE corresponding to proportional thermal loading Mechanical Engineers; 1995.

are self-equilibrated stresses, such that by choosing r ¼ [3] Hechmer JL, Hollinger GL. 3D stress criteria for application. New

2sE in problem (6) it is clear that 2 is also a lower bound York: Welding Research Council Bulletin; 1998. p. 429.

[4] Taylor N, editor. The design-by-analysis manual. 1999. Error

for as and thus follows as ¼ 2 independent of the failure Corrections. Available at http://info.tuwien.ac.at/IAA/news/

mode. dba1_engl.htm.

For purely secondary actions with proportional change a [5] Staat M. Some achievements of the European Project LISA forFEM

simple PD check requires based limit and shakedown analysis. In: Badie N, editor. Compu-

tational mechanics: developments and applications. ASME PVP, vol.

DsQ # 2Rp0:2 and sP þ sF ¼ 0: ð11Þ 441; 2002. p. 177–85.

[6] Staat M, Heitzer M. The restricted influence of kinematic hardening

Reducing

pﬃﬃ the real GPD limit actions by division with on shakedown loads. In: Mang HA, Rammersdorfer FG, Eberhard-

2gp gR = 3 for the above examples, the interaction steiner J, editors. Fifth World Congress onComputational Mechanics,

diagrams demonstrate that failure by wrong application July 7–12, Vienna, Austria. 2002.

of the 3f criterion may not necessarily lead to practical [7] Bari S. Constitutive Modeling for Cyclic Plasticity and Ratcheting,

PhD Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 2001.

problems, because the GPD check rules out most critical [8] Staat M, Heitzer M. LISA a European Project for FEM-based limit and

actions. shakedown analysis. Nucl Eng Des 2001;206:151–66.

[9] Staat M, Heitzer M, editors. Numerical methods for limit and

shakedown analysis. NIC-series, vol. 15. Jülich: John von Neumann

6. Conclusions Institutefor Computing; 2003. Available at http://www.fz-juelich.de/

nic-series/volume15/volume15.html.

[10] Staat M, Schwartz M, Lang H, Wirtz K, Heitzer M. Design by analysis

The well known 3f criterion can be justified for a PD of pressure components by non-linear optimization. In: Zeman JL,

check only under purely thermal actions. However, in editor. Pressure vessel technology, Proceedings ICPVT-10, July

design practice no problems are expected if mechanical 7–10, Vienna, Austria. 2003.

M. Staat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 61–67 67

[11] Vu DK, Yan AM, Nguyen-Dang H. A dual form for discretized condition. In: Weichert D, Maier G, editors. Inelastic analysis of

kinematic formulation in shakedown analysis. Int J Solids Struct structures under variable loads: theory and engineering applications.

2004;41(1):267–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2000.

[12] König JA. Shakedown of elastic–plastic structures. Amsterdam: [15] Preiss R, Zeman JL. The Deviatoric map—a simple tool in DBA.

Elsevier; 1987. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1999;76:339–44.

[13] Mackenzie D, Boyle JT, et al. A method of estimating limit loads by [16] INTES PERMAS User’s reference manual. PERMAS Version 7,

iterative elastic analysis I, II and III. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping INTES Publication No. 450. Stuttgart: Rev. E; 1999.

1993;53(1):77–142. [17] Heitzer M, Staat M. FEM-computation of load carrying capacity of

[14] Ponter ARS, Engelhardt M. Shakedown limits for a general yield highly loaded passive components by direct methods. Nucl Eng Des

condition: implementation and application for a von Mises yield 1999;193:349 –58.

- Syllabus AD (2)Загружено:selmaramesh
- Plastic Design in Steel (1957)Загружено:Louis Lai
- Stress Analysis of Rupture DiskЗагружено:vijayanmks
- Prediction of Fatigue Crack Initiation Life in Railheads Using Finite Element-grupo 9Загружено:sebastian
- 2014 OTC Dynamic Plastic Deformation of Deepwater Steel Catenary Risers Under Extreme Cyclic Compressive LoadingЗагружено:MehdiGhoddosi
- SAP2000 comprobacionЗагружено:Tre0
- Finite Element Analysis and Life Estimation of a PermanentЗагружено:omarihuano
- ch07_Q&A_HW8Загружено:Engr Arbab Faisal
- Civil CodeЗагружено:hodaps.ggs
- Composite AnalysisЗагружено:rshegde
- Plastic and Elastic Responses of a Jacket Platform Subjected to Ship ImpactsЗагружено:sachin
- Plastic Design of Laterally Patch Loaded Plates for ShipsЗагружено:Kurt Zarwell
- Syllabus a DiplomaЗагружено:Ramanujam O S
- JPPS2.2Загружено:Cristian Banarie
- CHAPTER 1- 1D AND 2D LINEAR STRESS STRAIN (BASIC SOLID MECHANICS)Загружено:dixn__
- Applicability of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis on Rocking StructuresЗагружено:contrerasc_sebastian988
- TOPIC 3 Mechanic structureЗагружено:Ainin
- 6. Tensile Testing I HandoutЗагружено:Sam
- PlasticityЗагружено:khudhayer1970
- june_06_FABЗагружено:BookMaggot
- Tutorial_03_Support.pdfЗагружено:yadavniranjan
- FEA of v-Bending of PPЗагружено:Trexa Gyreue
- Mechanics of solidЗагружено:patrik710
- 1-s2.0-S0168874X98000444-mainЗагружено:kotakamals
- Computational analysis of the interfacial bonding between feed-powder particles and the substrate in the cold-gas dynamic-spray processЗагружено:Stellina Zola
- 7Загружено:hend mahmoud
- LECT-1Загружено:Boopathi Yoganathan
- Temperature EffectЗагружено:Karthick Ram
- Bauschinger EffectЗагружено:sklux
- 11 Mechanical Properties Dynamic w Audio SS CLЗагружено:rmeyy

- rt-asmeb31.3-withoutsecure.pdfЗагружено:kishorekumar.animu
- 2007 Approximation of Contact Stress for a Compressed and Laterally One Side Restrained O-ringЗагружено:Bib Gmz
- 1999 On the shakedown analysis of nozzles using elasto-plastic FEA.pdfЗагружено:Bib Gmz
- 2009 a Comparative Study of Usefulness for Pad Reinforcement in Cylindrical Vessels Under External Load on NozzleЗагружено:Bib Gmz
- An Overview Ot He ASME Guide for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid MechanicsЗагружено:Bib Gmz
- FEA of Nonlinear Problems 2011 IvancoЗагружено:hazemismaeelradhi
- Ship&OffshoreЗагружено:Bib Gmz
- Factores de JuntaЗагружено:Bib Gmz
- math2034notes-10Загружено:Bib Gmz

- Co2 StorageЗагружено:saifulislam9442
- 1-s2.0-S1350630714002453-mainЗагружено:fkaram1965
- Tugas Bahan Kontruksi Teknik Kimia Part 3Загружено:Ervan Bowo
- Analysis of Pressure Vessel : A ReviewЗагружено:IJIRST
- Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structure With Fracture and Damage Mechanics Constitutive ModelsЗагружено:sahashi
- Floor Diaphragms 353Загружено:hjmaranhao
- Yongzhou WangЗагружено:Pablo GC
- The Modeling of Ground Improvement with Stone ColumnsЗагружено:Innovative Research Publications
- Finite Element Analysis of the Orthogonal Metal Cutting Process 2000 Journal of Materials Processing TechnologyЗагружено:Edo Destrada
- Propogation of short fatigue cracksЗагружено:Anonymous 9PIxHy13
- Concrete Constitutive Model, Calibration and Applications 13Загружено:tt3340
- manufacturing multi-layer tablets.pdfЗагружено:Miguel Sordo
- ME 227 Lecture 1Загружено:Mhuthasim Ahmed Emon
- Noise in Square Law DetectorsЗагружено:Asghar Farhadi
- Civil III Strength of Materials [10cv33] NotesЗагружено:SaiSowmithGoudNaramala
- Soil Bearing Tests Using a Spherical Penetration DeviceЗагружено:indah
- 17.Manufacturing TechnologyЗагружено:adityadty_369
- Voo 2006-Shear Strength UHPCЗагружено:Hung Tran
- handout3.pdfЗагружено:Sneha Kri
- L1-Introduction to Materials Engineering ConceptsЗагружено:eleni
- Cone CalculationЗагружено:Ilham Widyasa
- Effects of Shot BlastingЗагружено:roberz27
- Failure Theories PDFЗагружено:Ben
- Experimental Study on the Cyclic Response of an Existing Rc Bridge PierЗагружено:langxuzeng
- 7206-9292-1-PB.pdfЗагружено:Robert Simmons
- 000000000001000311-Guidelines for Performing Probabilistic Analyses of Boiler Pressure PartsЗагружено:danish873
- Phase Field Modelling of Martensitic TransformationsЗагружено:harish_158
- Nguyen Et Al-2008-International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsЗагружено:luisfmpereira
- 263909_ADI- An Alternative Matl for Railcar Wheels K Madler Jun99Загружено:Tesfaye Atalay
- CV6311 Shear Strength Lect1 2012Загружено:ikanyu79