1999
DOI: 10.1007/s004190050254
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shakedown analysis of defective pressure vessels by a kinematic approach

Abstract: In this paper, a kinematic approach and an iterative procedure, earlier proposed for\ud limit analysis, are adopted for shakedown analysis under variable repeated loading. Reference\ud is made to three-dimensional structures of engineering relevance, such as pressurized pipelines\ud and vessels with ¯uctuating pressure and with slot damages due, e.g. to pitting corrosion. The\ud numerical performance of the solution algorithm is investigated, and the cost-effectiveness of\ud the proposed direct shakedown analy… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
26
0
3

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
26
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A first line of research is concerned with extensions of the original theorem to various nonlinear behaviors, such as hardening plasticity (Pham, 2008;Nguyen, 2003), non standard plasticity (Corigliano et al, 1995;Bodovillé and De Saxcé, 2001), contact with friction (Ahn et al, 2008), phase-transformation (Peigney, 2010). A second (and complementing) line of research is concerned with the development of numerical methods for efficiently determining the shakedown domain in the space of load parameters (Zarka et al, 1988;Maitournam et al, 2002;Carvelli et al, 1999;Peigney andStolz, 2001, 2003;Simon and Weichert, 2012;Spiliopoulos and Panagiotou, 2012). We refer to Weichert and Ponter (2014) for more historical details on the development of shakedown theory.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A first line of research is concerned with extensions of the original theorem to various nonlinear behaviors, such as hardening plasticity (Pham, 2008;Nguyen, 2003), non standard plasticity (Corigliano et al, 1995;Bodovillé and De Saxcé, 2001), contact with friction (Ahn et al, 2008), phase-transformation (Peigney, 2010). A second (and complementing) line of research is concerned with the development of numerical methods for efficiently determining the shakedown domain in the space of load parameters (Zarka et al, 1988;Maitournam et al, 2002;Carvelli et al, 1999;Peigney andStolz, 2001, 2003;Simon and Weichert, 2012;Spiliopoulos and Panagiotou, 2012). We refer to Weichert and Ponter (2014) for more historical details on the development of shakedown theory.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is highlighted by the selection of solutions originally compiled by Gross-Weege [11] and expanded with more recent results in Table 1. 0.599 N/A N/A Garcea et al [9] 0.604 0.438 0.508 Gross-Weege [11] 0.614 0.446 0.524 Hamadouche [12] 0.623 0.490 N/A Zhang [32] 0.624 0.453 0.539 Liu et al [19] 0.647 0.477 0.549 Zhang et al [34] 0.647 0.477 0.549 Genna [10] 0.653 0.478 0.566 Corradi and Zavelani [6] 0.654 0.504 0.579 Chen and Ponter [5] 0.666 N/A N/A Carvelli et al [4] 0.696 0.518…”
Section: Perforated Plate In Biaxial Tension Imentioning
confidence: 99%
“…independent on any residual stress that may exist initially in the structure. The shakedown theory has been the object of numerous developments, regarding both extensions of the original theorem to various nonlinear behaviors [4,5,6,7,8,9] and numerical methods for assessing the shakedown limits in the case of parametrized loading histories [10,11,12,13,14,15,16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%