@misc{HuebelVollrath, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Vollrath, Bastian}, title = {Limited Versus Unlimited Strain Accumulation Due to Ratcheting Mechanisms}, series = {Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology}, volume = {141}, journal = {Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1115/1.4042853}, pages = {031206-1 -- 031206-10}, abstract = {After distinguishing material ratcheting and structural ratcheting, different phenomena related to structural ratcheting are gathered. Ratcheting of elastic-plastic structures observed with stationary position of loads is distinguished from ratcheting with moving loads. Both categories are illustrated by examples. The effect of evolution laws for the internal variables describing kinematic hardening on the accumulation of strain due to a ratcheting mechanism, and whether the ratcheting mechanism ceases with the number of cycles so that the accumulated strains are limited, is discussed. Some conditions are shown, under which the Chaboche model can lead to shakedown. Scenarios where shakedown is guaranteed at every load level, or where it may or may not occur at a specific load level, or where it definitely cannot occur at any load level, are distinguished. Correspondingly, the usefulness of shakedown analyses, which are searching for maximum load factors assuring shakedown, or direct (or simplified) methods to obtain postshakedown quantities by avoiding incremental cyclic analyses is discussed.}, language = {en} } @misc{HuebelVollrath, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Vollrath, Bastian}, title = {Simplified determination of accumulated strains to satisfy design code requirements}, series = {International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping}, volume = {171}, journal = {International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping}, issn = {0308-0161}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijpvp.2019.01.014}, pages = {92 -- 103}, abstract = {In case of cyclic loading, strain may accumulate due to a ratcheting mechanism until the state of shakedown is possibly achieved. Design Codes frequently require strain limits to be satisfied at the end of the specified lifetime of the structure. In addition, the strain range is required for performing fatigue analyses in case of plastic shakedown. However, little guidance is usually provided by Design Codes on how the accumulated strains and strain ranges are to be calculated, and some of the guidelines implemented in Design Codes are not well founded and may therefore be misleading. This is, for example, true for the ASME B\&PV Code, Section III. Of course, strains and strain ranges can be determined by means of incremental elastic-plastic analyses, which require to go step-by-step through many cycles of a given load histogram until the state of shakedown is reached. This is rather costly in terms of engineering time and numerical effort. As an alternative, simplified methods can be adopted, e.g. the Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones (STPZ) as used in the present paper. Being a direct method, effects from load history are disregarded. The theory is described shortly and illustrated by some examples. It is shown that the Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones is well suited to provide reasonable estimates of strains accumulated in the state of elastic and plastic shakedown at the cost of few linear elastic analyses.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{HuebelVollrath, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Vollrath, Bastian}, title = {Simplified Analysis of Strains Accumulated in the State of Elastic Shakedown Considering Multi-Parameter Loadings}, series = {ASME 2018 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Volume 3B: Design and Analysis, Prague, Czech Republic, July 15-20, 2018}, booktitle = {ASME 2018 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Volume 3B: Design and Analysis, Prague, Czech Republic, July 15-20, 2018}, publisher = {ASME}, address = {New York, NY}, isbn = {978-0-7918-5163-0}, doi = {10.1115/PVP2018-84070}, pages = {10}, abstract = {In case of cyclic loading, strain may accumulate due to a ratcheting mechanism until the state of shakedown is possibly achieved. Design Codes frequently require strain limits to be satisfied at the end of the specified lifetime of the structure. However, this requirement is sometimes tied to misleading prerequisites, and little guidance is provided on how the strains accumulated in the state of shakedown can be calculated. Incremental elastic-plastic analyses which require to go step-by-step through many cycles of a given load histogram are rather costly in terms of engineering time and numerical effort. As an alternative, the Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones (STPZ) is used in the present paper. Being a direct method, effects from load history are disregarded. The theory is described shortly and exemplarily applied to a simplification of a pipe bend and a straight pipe, both subjected to combinations of several loads which vary independently from each other so that a multidimensional load domain is represented. It is shown that the Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones is well suited to provide reasonable estimates of strains accumulated in the state of elastic shakedown at the cost of few linear elastic analyses.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{VollrathHuebel, author = {Vollrath, Bastian and H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Determination of post-shakedown quantities of a pipe bend via the simplified theory of plastic zones compared with load history dependent incremental analysis}, series = {Computer methods in mechanics (CMM2017), proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computer Methods in Mechanics, Lublin, Poland, 13-16 September 2017}, booktitle = {Computer methods in mechanics (CMM2017), proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computer Methods in Mechanics, Lublin, Poland, 13-16 September 2017}, editor = {Podg{\´o}rski, Jerzy and Borowa, Ewa-Błazik and Be̜c, Jarosław}, publisher = {AIP Publishing}, address = {Melville, New York}, isbn = {978-0-7354-1614-7}, doi = {10.1063/1.5019119}, abstract = {The Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones (STPZ) may be used to determine post-shakedown quantities such as strain ranges and accumulated strains at plastic or elastic shakedown. The principles of the method are summarized. Its practical applicability is shown by the example of a pipe bend subjected to constant internal pressure along with cyclic inplane bending or/and cyclic radial temperature gradient. The results are compared with incremental analyses performed step-by-step throughout the entire load history until the state of plastic shakedown is achieved.}, language = {en} } @misc{HuebelVollrath, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Vollrath, Bastian}, title = {Ratcheting caused by moving loads}, series = {International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering}, volume = {9}, journal = {International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering}, number = {2}, issn = {2008-6695}, pages = {139 -- 152}, abstract = {Progressive deformation (ratcheting) can occur as a response to variable loads as soon as the elastic limit is exceeded. If this is the case, strains and displacements accumulate in the event of cyclic loading in each load cycle. Widely known as triggers for ratcheting and already being considered in some design codes are configurations, in which a structure is subjected to at least two different types of load, namely a constant load (the primary load) and a superimposed cyclic load. In this paper, another mechanism that generates ratcheting is introduced. It can be attributed solely to the effect of a single load. In the simplest case, this can be explained by the successive activation of (an infinite number of) plastic hinges if a load of constant magnitude is moved in space. The increments of strains and displacements can decrease or increase from cycle to cycle, when the material is hardening, or if elastic foundation is present, or if the equilibrium condition is formulated for the deformed system (second-order theory) or if "large" rotations are taken into account (third-order theory).}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{VollrathHuebel, author = {Vollrath, Bastian and H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Determination of post-shakedown quantities of a pipe bend via the Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones compared with load history dependent incremental analysis}, series = {22nd International Conference on Computer Methods in Mechanics, CMM2017}, booktitle = {22nd International Conference on Computer Methods in Mechanics, CMM2017}, editor = {Burczynski, Tadeusz}, address = {Lublin}, isbn = {978-83-7947-264-2}, pages = {MS11-1 -- MS11-2}, abstract = {The Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones (STPZ) may be used to determine post-shakedown quantities such as strain ranges and accumulated strains. The principles of the method are summarized succinctly and the practical applicability is shown by the example of a pipe bend subjected to internal pressure and cyclic in-plane bending.}, language = {en} } @book{Huebel, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones}, edition = {1. Auflage}, publisher = {Springer International Publishing}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-319-29873-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-29875-7}, pages = {316}, abstract = {For a life prediction of structures subjected to variable loads, frequently encountered in mechanical and civil engineering, the cyclically accumulated deformation and the elastic-plastic strain ranges are required. The Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones (STPZ) is a direct method which provides the estimates of these and all other mechanical quantities in the state of elastic and plastic shakedown. The STPZ is described in detail, with emphasis to the fact that not only scientists but engineers working in practice and advanced students are able to get an idea of the possibilities and limitations of the STPZ. Numerous illustrations and examples are provided to support your understanding.}, language = {en} } @misc{Huebel, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones for cyclic loading and multilinear hardening}, series = {International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping}, journal = {International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping}, number = {129-130}, issn = {0308-0161}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijpvp.2015.03.002}, pages = {19 -- 31}, abstract = {The Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones (STPZ) is a direct method based on Zarka's method, primarily developed to estimate post-shakedown quantities of structures under cyclic loading, avoiding incremental analyses through a load histogram. In a different paper the STPZ has previously been shown to provide excellent estimates of the elastic-plastic strain ranges in the state of plastic shakedown as required for fatigue analyses. In the present paper, it is described how the STPZ can be used to predict the strains accumulated through a number of loading cycles due to a ratcheting mechanism, until either elastic or plastic shakedown is achieved, so that strain limits can be satisfied. Thus, a consistent means of estimating both, strain ranges and accumulated strains is provided for structural integrity assessment as required by pressure vessel codes. The computational costs involved typically consist of few linear elastic analyses and some local calculations. Multilinear kinematic hardening and temperature dependent yield stresses are accounted for. The quality of the results and the computational burden involved are demonstrated through four examples.}, language = {en} } @misc{HuebelWilluweitRudolphetal., author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Willuweit, Adrian and Rudolph, J{\"u}rgen and Ziegler, Rainer and Lang, Hermann and Rother, Klemens and Deller, Simon}, title = {Performance study of the simplified theory of plastic zones and the Twice-Yield method for the fatigue check}, series = {International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping}, journal = {International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping}, number = {116}, issn = {0308-0161}, doi = {doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.01.003}, pages = {10 -- 19}, abstract = {As elastic-plastic fatigue analyses are still time consuming the simplified elastic-plastic analysis (e.g. ASME Section III, NB 3228.5, the French RCC-M code, paragraphs B 3234.3, B 3234.5 and B3234.6 and the German KTA rule 3201.2, paragraph 7.8.4) is often applied. Besides linearly elastic analyses and factorial plasticity correction (Ke factors) direct methods are an option. In fact, calculation effort and accuracy of results are growing in the following graded scheme: a) linearly elastic analysis along with Ke correction, b) direct methods for the determination of stabilized elastic-plastic strain ranges and c) incremental elastic-plastic methods for the determination of stabilized elastic-plastic strain ranges. The paper concentrates on option b) by substantiating the practical applicability of the simplified theory of plastic zones STPZ (based on Zarka's method) and - for comparison - the established Twice-Yield method. The Twice-Yield method is explicitly addressed in ASME Code, Section VIII, Div. 2. Application relevant aspects are particularly addressed. Furthermore, the applicability of the STPZ for arbitrary load time histories in connection with an appropriate cycle counting method is discussed. Note, that the STPZ is applicable both for the determination of (fatigue relevant) elastic-plastic strain ranges and (ratcheting relevant) locally accumulated strains. This paper concentrates on the performance of the method in terms of the determination of elastic-plastic strain ranges and fatigue usage factors. The additional performance in terms of locally accumulated strains and ratcheting will be discussed in a future publication.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{HuebelRudolphRotheretal., author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Rudolph, J{\"u}rgen and Rother, Klemens and Ziegler, Rainer and Willuweit, Adrian and Lang, Hermann and Deller, Simon}, title = {Performance Study of the Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones for the Fatigue Check}, series = {Proceedings of PVP2013, ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Paris, 2013}, booktitle = {Proceedings of PVP2013, ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Paris, 2013}, publisher = {ASME}, address = {New York, NY}, isbn = {978-0-7918-5564-5}, doi = {10.1115/PVP2013-97137}, pages = {1 -- 9}, abstract = {As elastic-plastic fatigue analyses are still time consuming the simplified elastic-plastic analysis (e.g. ASME Section III, NB 3228.5, the French RCC-M code, paragraphs B 3234.3, B 3234.5 and B3234.6 and the German KTA rule 3201.2, paragraph 7.8.4) is often applied. Besides linearly elastic analyses and factorial plasticity correction (Ke-factors) direct methods are an option. In fact, calculation effort and accuracy of results are growing in the following graded scheme: a) linearly elastic analysis along with Ke correction, b) direct methods for the determination of stabilized elastic-plastic strain ranges and c) incremental elastic-plastic methods for the determination of stabilized elastic-plastic strain ranges. The paper concentrates on option b) by substantiating the practical applicability of the simplified theory of plastic zones STPZ (based on Zarka's method). Application relevant aspects are particularly addressed. Furthermore, the applicability of the STPZ for arbitrary load time histories in connection with an appropriate cycle counting method is discussed. Note, that the STPZ is applicable both for the determination of (fatigue relevant) elastic-plastic strain ranges and (ratcheting relevant) locally accumulated strains. This paper concentrates on the performance of the method in terms of the determination of elastic-plastic strain ranges and fatigue usage factors. The additional performance in terms of locally accumulated strains and ratcheting will be discussed in a future publication.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{HuebelWilluweitRudolphetal., author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Willuweit, Adrian and Rudolph, J{\"u}rgen and Ziegler, Rainer and Lang, Hermann and Rother, Klemens and Deller, Simon}, title = {Performance study of the simplified theory of plastic zones and the Twice Yield method for the fatigue check}, series = {Proceedings of ANSYS Conference \& 31th CADFEM Users' Meeting, Mannheim, 2013}, booktitle = {Proceedings of ANSYS Conference \& 31th CADFEM Users' Meeting, Mannheim, 2013}, abstract = {As elastic-plastic fatigue analyses are still time consuming the simplified elastic-plastic analysis (e.g. ASME Section III, NB 3228.5, the French RCC-M code, paragraphs B 3234.3, B 3234.5 and B3234.6 and the German KTA rule 3201.2, paragraph 7.8.4) is often applied. Besides linearly elastic analyses and factorial plasticity correction (Ke-factors) direct methods are an option. In fact, calculation effort and accuracy of results are growing in the following graded scheme: a) linearly elastic analysis along with Ke correction, b) direct methods for the determination of stabilized elastic-plastic strain ranges and c) incremental elastic-plastic methods for the determination of stabilized elastic-plastic strain ranges. The paper concentrates on option b) by substantiating the practical applicability of the simplified theory of plastic zones STPZ (based on Zarka's method) and - for comparison - the established Twice Yield method. Application relevant aspects are particularly addressed. Furthermore, the applicability of the STPZ for arbitrary load time histories in connection with an appropriate cycle counting method is discussed. Note, that the STPZ is applicable both for the determination of (fatigue relevant) elastic-plastic strain ranges and (ratcheting relevant) locally accumulated strains. This paper concentrates on the performance of the method in terms of the determination of elastic-plastic strain ranges and fatigue usage factors. The additional performance in terms of locally accumulated strains and ratcheting will be discussed in a future publication.}, language = {en} } @misc{HuebelKretzschmar, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Kretzschmar, Andreas}, title = {Use of Zarka's Method at FHL}, pages = {38}, abstract = {Es wird ein historischer Abriss der Zarka-Methode gegeben. Ihre Vor- und Nachteile bei der Ermittlung der Strukturantwort monoton oder zyklisch {\"u}berelastisch beanspruchter Tragwerken werden abgewogen. Erweiterungen, Verbesserungen und Spezialisierungen in Hinblick auf die Vereinfachte Fließzonentheorie werden erl{\"a}utert und beispielhaft angewendet (thermal stratification, cylindrical shell under axial temperature step). Anforderungen an die Implementierung in eine FE-Umgebung mittels Makros und User-subroutines werden aufgef{\"u}hrt. Ergebnisse eines gemeinsam mit der CUT durchgef{\"u}hrten Benchmarks (Hertz-contact, Bree-tube) werden vorgestellt.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{Huebel, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Numerical Examples to Compare Zarka's Method with Evolutive Analyses}, series = {ECCM-2001, 2nd European Conference on Computational Mechanics, Cracow, Poland, June 26 - 29, 200, proceedings}, booktitle = {ECCM-2001, 2nd European Conference on Computational Mechanics, Cracow, Poland, June 26 - 29, 200, proceedings}, publisher = {Vesalius}, address = {Cracow}, abstract = {Life assessment of a structure subject to cyclic loading rests on quantifying strain accumulated prior to shakedown and the strain range experienced after plastic shakedown has been achieved. Few methods exist to predict these quantities. Zarka's method is one of these methods. It is evaluated by analyzing several examples of structures and comparing the quality of the results obtained and the numerical effort required with evolutive analyses by using a commercial Finite Element program.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{Huebel, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Trial Application of Zarka´s Method under Cyclic Loading}, series = {EUROMECH 385, Aachen, September 10, 1998}, booktitle = {EUROMECH 385, Aachen, September 10, 1998}, pages = {4}, abstract = {If a mechanical structure is to be designed for operation under cyclic loading, primarily two kinds of failure must be guarded against: (1) low cycle fatigue which may occur due to strains cycling between two states (controlled by the strain range exceeding twice the yield limit); (2) ductility exhaustion which may occur due to accumulating strain from one load cycle to another. These two kinds of failure are local failure modes so that strains need to be calculated and then assessed by comparison with code allowables such as the 1\%, 2\% and 5\% strain limits set by the ASME nuclear codes. Elastic-plastic strains can be calculated by incremental (or step-by-step or evolutive) analyses. Unfortunately, this can be extremely costly if thousands of cycles are required to achieve shakedown. Therefore, simplified elastic-plastic analysis methods are desired allowing to obtain specific information at reduced effort, nevertheless accounting for the main features controlling strain such as kinematic hardening. Zarka's method, early versions of which are available since twenty years, appears promising to provide both strain ranges and accumulated strains in the saturated cycle, i.e. after shakedown has been achieved. However, several attempts to use this method in the nuclear industry failed to qualify the method as a reliable analysis tool. This was due to several reasons: (1) the publications describing the method were written in a highly scientific language the design engineers in industry were not familiar with; (2) in some cases Zarka's method provided excellent results (compared with incremental analyses), but bad ones in others. Nevertheless, there remained some interest to uncover the potential of this method. For that purpose some calculations are performed for simple configurations of structure and loading (so that the structural response can be interpreted relatively easily). More insight into the performance of the method may thus be gained in terms of computational steps to be followed, the numerical effort required, the quality of the results obtained, and the sensibility with respect to material data and load level. The basic idea of Zarka's method is to redefine the elastic-plastic problem by an equivalent elastic problem with suitably defined modified elastic material parameters and initial strains. This requires estimating (and iteratively improving) the geometry of the plastic zone and of transformed internal variables. A particular class of material models is admitted, the simplest of which is the linear kinematic hardening model.}, language = {en} } @book{GrandemangeHuebelOrsinietal., author = {Grandemange, J. M. and H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Orsini, M. and Schramm, K. and Smith, N. G.}, title = {Improved Design-by-Analysis Procedures for LWR Design Codes}, publisher = {Commission of the European Communities}, address = {Luxembourg}, isbn = {92-828-4191-X}, pages = {VII, 89}, abstract = {The European Fast Reactor (EFR) collaboration with the EFR Associates Design and Construction Rules Committee, and the R\&D Agreement (AGT9B) produced significant developments in design-by-analysis procedures for high temperature plant. Many of these developments are judged to be relevant to the non-creep conditions of LWR plant, and for this reason, the CEC DGXI Working Group Codes and Standards supported this study to review and make recommendations on their potential application for improving LWR design code procedures. The topics considered are judged to be those where the most significant and relevant developments have been made and the list, although not exhaustive, is as follows: - Negligible creep criteria - Design-by-analysis procedures for weldments - Shakedown design rules - Design-by-analysis methods for tubeplates - Buckling rules - Interaction diagrams for assessing ratcheting - Rules for the prevention of elastic follow-up in piping - Strain range enhancement - Constitutive equations for inelastic analysis - Margins on Level D criteria - Zarka's method}, language = {en} } @misc{BieniussaReckHuebel, author = {Bieniussa, Klaus W. and Reck, Hans and H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Determination of more realistic Ke,r-factors for simplified elastic-plastic analysis}, series = {Nuclear Engineering and Design}, volume = {174}, journal = {Nuclear Engineering and Design}, number = {3}, issn = {0029-5493}, pages = {343 -- 352}, abstract = {According to the relevant KTA-Rules, e.g. KTA 3201.2, strain correction factors — Ke-factors — have to be used in the fatigue analysis of pressurised components if the strain intensity ranges are determined by elastic analyses, and if in this case the range of primary plus secondary stress intensity exceeds a certain limit. This limit is three times the design stress intensity value, Sm, and thus approximately corresponds to twice the value of the 0.2\% strain limit. The relations given in the above-mentioned rules to determine the Ke-factors for considering plastification have proved to be very conservative in many cases compared with the strain intensity ranges that were determined by complete elastic-plastic analyses. In order to improve the validity of the fatigue analysis, the topic of `Performance of fundamental work to prepare concrete proposals for realistic Ke,r-factors (strain correction factors) to consider plastification at large strain amplitudes' was one of the subjects of the BMU project SR 2063. In summary, the result was that the proposed realistic Ke,r-factors present a real alternative to the Ke-factors of the regulations; the latter serve a mostly conservative registration of the observed elastic-plastic strain but cannot be explained in terms of physics and are not formulated in a manner adequately specific of any material. The exemplary verification calculations that have been performed so far show, furthermore, that the proposed realistic Ke,r-factors can be easily determined and also deliver sufficiently conservative results. This new method therefore has great potential which, however, still has to continue to be verified by further calculations before it can be included in the KTA-Rules.}, language = {en} } @misc{Huebel, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Basic Conditions for Material and Structural Ratcheting}, series = {Nuclear Engineering and Design}, volume = {162}, journal = {Nuclear Engineering and Design}, number = {1}, issn = {0029-5493}, doi = {10.1016/0029-5493(95)01136-6}, pages = {55 -- 65}, abstract = {This paper is intended to provide an overview of different aspects of ratcheting under cyclic loading below the creep range. It distinguishes between material ratcheting and structural ratcheting, each being characterized by several different phenomena which appear in different configurations of materials, states of stress, structural geometries and loadings. The systematic compilation of these phenomena presented in the paper may help to improve understanding between material researches, developers of inelastic methods of analysis, structural analysts and design code committees. Above all, a certain degree of knowledge about the different mechanisms of ratchetting is important for a structural analyst to be able to choose an appropriate analytical method for assessing the ratcheting phenomena involved in a specific design problem.}, language = {en} } @book{MaierComiCoriglianoetal., author = {Maier, Giulio and Comi, Claudia and Corigliano, Alberto and Perego, Umberto and H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Bounds and Estimates on Inelastic Deformations}, publisher = {Commission of the European Communities}, address = {Luxembourg}, isbn = {92-827-5006-X}, pages = {286}, abstract = {Design codes require to demonstrate that certain limits of inelastic deformation are not exceeded during the service life of a structure. If the loading is cyclic, inelastic strains may accumulate cycle by cycle and may exceed specified allowables after a number of cycles before a stationary state (elastic or plastic shakedown) is achieved, or the inelastic strains may grow unboundedly due to a ratchetting mechanism. In principle, inelastic deformations can be calculated by performing evolutive (step-by-step) inelastic analyses. These require specific information, which is, however, not always available, such as detailed constitutive modelling and loading history. Furthermore, evolutive inelastic analyses are very costly. Therefore, simplified inelastic analyses are desirable to provide at least partial information about structural behaviour: more specifically, upper bounds on, or estimates of, elastic-plastic-creep deformations. Some simplified methods are envisaged by design codes (as pointed out in Chapter 2). However, they are based on specific configurations of geometry and loading or they adopt heuristic assumptions, the reasonability of which is not always evident for general applicability within the scope of these codes. Accordingly, design codes seem to require improvements. Several simplified methods are reviewed in the present Report and might serve as alternatives to those suggested by design codes. Simplified methods can be grouped in two classes: (a ) procedures intended to determine a safety factor against a critical event of the global structure (such as collapse); (b ) techniques apt to provide information on local quantities (such as inelastic strain) associated to inelastic structural responses. Procedures of class (a ) and some of their recent extensions are briefly surveyed in Chapter 3. Subclasses of category (b ) are discussed in the subsequent Chapters, with emphasis on their operative peculiarities and on their practical usefulness or potentialities. Upper bounds in plasticity (Chapter 4 and Appendix A) can be computed by various approaches, basically by satisfying a set of equations and inequalities and by carrying out some optimisation procedure. To within the consequences of modelling errors, residual post shakedown quantities are guaranteed to be bounded from above: this circumstance is referred to by the adjective "rigorous". A number of bounding inequalities can be proved. Usually, the better (lower) the bound, the more expensive is its computation. However, computational advantages over other simplified approaches can hardly be ascertained in general. Upper bounds in creep (Chapter 5) are based on general rigorous mechanical foundations, but the applications available mostly concern particular cases employing "ad hoc" imaginative, sometimes heuristic assumptions which are not easy to transfer to other cases. Mostly, elastic-perfectly plastic material behaviour and the Bailey-Orowan creep model are assumed. Some simplified methods, such as the British shakedown method (Chapter 6), intend to estimate residual stress fields after elastic shakedown (the British method also, in certain circumstances, after plastic shakedown). They adopt empirically corroborated conjectures, rather than rigorous arguments. Material hardening is neglected. Zarka's method (Chapter 7 and 8 and Appendix B) provides estimates of the mean strain in case of elastic shakedown and, in addition, a lower and an upper estimate of strain range in case of plastic shakedown, by adopting some heuristic assumptions. The validity of these assumptions is difficult to assess in practical applications. Material hardening is required. The method developed by Ladev{\`e}ze and coworkers (Chapter 9 and Appendix C) is not, strictly speaking, a simplified method, in the sense that it provides the same kind of information as rigorous evolutive analyses. The simplification lies in the solution process, which can be stopped after a few iterations since each one of these concern the whole time interval of interest. Thus estimates are achieved of the structural inelastic response over a large time interval (much larger than the time step in an evolutive analysis). General material models are admitted. None of the simplified methods reviewed in the present Report can directly be recommended for general practical use in nuclear design situations. However, some of them seem to have at least no less potentialities than the methods mentioned so far by design codes. Further work is necessary to clarify the conditions under which they are advantageous.}, language = {en} } @book{HuebelZeibig, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig and Zeibig, H.}, title = {State-of-the-Art of Simplified Methods to Account for Elastic Follow-up in Creep}, publisher = {Commission of the European Communities}, address = {Luxembourg}, isbn = {92-827-5009-4}, pages = {103}, abstract = {Engineering structures exposed to high temperature environment exhibit time dependent behaviour due to time dependent material behaviour. In order to avoid full inelastic analyses, simplified inelastic analysis methods are desirable. The concept of elastic follow-up was introduced to allow determination of quantities serving as measure for life assessment of structures subjected to creep conditions without performing full time dependent structural analyses. Various simplified methods are described in the literature to estimate enhancement of creep strain and of creep damage arising from the fact that so-called secondary stresses caused by displacement-controlled loading do not necessarily relax with time in the same way as stresses do that are caused by strain-controlled loading, but rather show some characteristics of stress-controlled loading. After providing a definition of elastic follow-up, the fundamental principles of elastic follow-up are compiled. A parameter "q" is introduced as a measure of elastic follow-up and is derived for some examples. Effects of non-uniform temperature distribution are discussed as well as effects resulting from multiaxial stress states. A number of methods to quantify elastic follow-up by simplified methods adopted by design codes or proposed in the literature are reviewed for general structures (Part I) and for piping (Part II).}, language = {en} } @book{Huebel, author = {H{\"u}bel, Hartwig}, title = {Simplified Elastic-Plastic Fatigue Analysis of Smooth Structures}, publisher = {Publ. of the European Communities}, address = {Luxembourg}, isbn = {92-826-9833-5}, pages = {178}, abstract = {Engineering structures subjected to high cyclic straining necessitating fatigue analysis play an important role in many industries. If the proportionality limit of the material is exceeded, nonlinearity of the material behaviour is to be taken into account. The structural response can then be calculated using either rigorous inelastic analysis methods, where stresses and strains are calculated on a step-by-step basis throughout a given load history, or by employing simplified methods of analysis. In the latter case a plastic strain range enhancement factor Ke is often used to obtain an elastic-plastic strain range based on fictitious elastic stress analyses. Plastic behaviour of simple academic and practical structures is investigated to identify the basic features which determine the factor Ke: (a) geometry of the structure (b) kind of loading (c) load level (d) material behaviour. The factor Ke is quantified for different geometries and kinds of loading. Parameter studies are performed to quantify the effects of load level, material models and hardening characteristics. The background of some factors Ke established in Nuclear Design Codes or proposed in the literature is reviewed. The behaviour of plastic structures can be attributed to global, localised and multiaxiality effects. Global structural effects comprise uniform reduction and redistribution of section forces and moments due to plasticity, including redistribution of stress across a section. Localised effects are concentrated to a very small volume of the material not affecting section forces and moments (e.g. notch effects). Multiaxiality effects arise from different Poisson's ratio associated with elastic and plastic behaviour. Emphasis is laid on global structural effects rather than localised effects due to notches and fillets. Therefore structures exhibiting geometric stiffness discontinuities are considered to be "smooth" in the sense that the specific geometry of the transition between parts of different stiffnesses is disregarded.}, language = {en} }