Nonlinear Subincremental Method for Determination of Elastic-Plastic-Creep Behaviour
(1985) In International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 21(12). p.2237-2256- Abstract
- The frequently used subincremental method has so far been based on a linear interpolation of the total strain path within each main step. This method has proven successful when elastic–plastic behaviour and secondary creep is involved. The present paper proposes a nonlinear subincremental method applicable to general elastic–plastic–creep behaviour including problems with a highly nonlinear total strain path caused by the occurrence of creep hardening. This nonlinear method degenerates to the linear-approach for elastic–plastic behaviour and when secondary creep is present. It is also linear during step loadings and it becomes increasingly more nonlinear, the more creep hardening deformations dominate the behaviour. A wide range of... (More)
- The frequently used subincremental method has so far been based on a linear interpolation of the total strain path within each main step. This method has proven successful when elastic–plastic behaviour and secondary creep is involved. The present paper proposes a nonlinear subincremental method applicable to general elastic–plastic–creep behaviour including problems with a highly nonlinear total strain path caused by the occurrence of creep hardening. This nonlinear method degenerates to the linear-approach for elastic–plastic behaviour and when secondary creep is present. It is also linear during step loadings and it becomes increasingly more nonlinear, the more creep hardening deformations dominate the behaviour. A wide range of structures are analysed and the results from both subincremental methods are compared; the nonlinear strategy increases the accuracy by a factor of typically 3–5 without affecting the computer time. Moreover, the implementation of the nonlinear method is extremely simple. The optimum number of substeps in each main step is found to be around 5. For such a choice, the advantage of using the subincremental method as compared to the more conventional solution technique, where only one type of time step is used, is a significant reduction in computer time without, in practice, affecting the accuracy. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1370209
- author
- Ottosen, Niels Saabye LU and Gunneskov, O.
- organization
- publishing date
- 1985
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
- volume
- 21
- issue
- 12
- pages
- 2237 - 2256
- publisher
- John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:0022388478
- ISSN
- 1097-0207
- DOI
- 10.1002/nme.1620211209
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 6d04b495-9552-4841-a382-845aa9ad0fd2 (old id 1370209)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 10:11:44
- date last changed
- 2021-01-03 08:41:10
@article{6d04b495-9552-4841-a382-845aa9ad0fd2,
abstract = {{The frequently used subincremental method has so far been based on a linear interpolation of the total strain path within each main step. This method has proven successful when elastic–plastic behaviour and secondary creep is involved. The present paper proposes a nonlinear subincremental method applicable to general elastic–plastic–creep behaviour including problems with a highly nonlinear total strain path caused by the occurrence of creep hardening. This nonlinear method degenerates to the linear-approach for elastic–plastic behaviour and when secondary creep is present. It is also linear during step loadings and it becomes increasingly more nonlinear, the more creep hardening deformations dominate the behaviour. A wide range of structures are analysed and the results from both subincremental methods are compared; the nonlinear strategy increases the accuracy by a factor of typically 3–5 without affecting the computer time. Moreover, the implementation of the nonlinear method is extremely simple. The optimum number of substeps in each main step is found to be around 5. For such a choice, the advantage of using the subincremental method as compared to the more conventional solution technique, where only one type of time step is used, is a significant reduction in computer time without, in practice, affecting the accuracy.}},
author = {{Ottosen, Niels Saabye and Gunneskov, O.}},
issn = {{1097-0207}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{12}},
pages = {{2237--2256}},
publisher = {{John Wiley & Sons Inc.}},
series = {{International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering}},
title = {{Nonlinear Subincremental Method for Determination of Elastic-Plastic-Creep Behaviour}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620211209}},
doi = {{10.1002/nme.1620211209}},
volume = {{21}},
year = {{1985}},
}