FG Baustatik, Stahlbau, FEM
Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (4)
Keywords
- Simplified Theory of Plastic Zones (4) (remove)
Institute
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.
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.
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.
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.