FG Baustatik, Stahlbau, FEM
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 Ladevèze 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.
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.
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.
Die Vereinfachte Fließzonentheorie gestattet bei zyklischer Belastung die näherungsweise Ermittlung der elastisch-plastischen Dehnungsschwingbreite und der durch einen Ratcheting-Mechanismus akkumulierten Verzerrungen sowie aller daraus ableitbaren Größen wie etwa Verformungen im elastischen und plastischen Einspielzustand. Sie beruht auf der Zarka-Methode. Im Gegensatz zu den in den technischen Regelwerken der Anlagentechnik zugelassenen vereinfachten Berechnungsmethoden (wie etwa die Anwendung des Faktors Ke) kann sie neben der Werkstoffverfestigung auch den Einfluß der individuellen Konfiguration von Bauteilgeometrie und Belastungsart auf das plastische Verhalten der Struktur erfassen. Sie ist gleichermaßen geeignet, globale Struktureffekte, lokale Kerbeffekte und Einflüsse aus der unterschiedlichen Querdehnungszahl im Elastischen und im Plastischen zu berücksichtigen. Als Berechnungsaufwand fallen lediglich einige modifizierte linear elastische Analysen sowie „lokale“ Berechnungen an. Eine Reihe von Beispielen zeigt, daß sowohl die Dehnungsschwingbreite als auch die akkumulierten Verzerrungen mit geringem Berechnungsaufwand in guter Näherung abgeschätzt werden können.