RETURN MAPPING FOR CREEP AND PLASTICITY SPLIT

RETURN MAPPING FOR CREEP AND PLASTICITY SPLIT

Fachinotti, V. D.; Albanesi, A. E.; Cardona, A.

Full Article:

Within the range of validity of the small strain theory, the strain is additively de- composed in an elastic or reversible strain and an inelastic or irreversible strain. The inelas- tic strain consists of a plastic component quickly developed under loading, and a viscous or creep component that develops slowly under loading. Most frequently, both components are assumed to develop simultaneously following a unique flow rule for the whole inelastic strain according to the Bingham-Norton rheological model, which neglects creep recovery. Under experimental evidence of considerable creep recovery, instantaneous plastic strain and slow creep evolve according their own flow rules. Unlike the case Bingham-Norton models are used, it is no longer possible to define a trial stress state from which it can be determined whether the plastic strain has increased or not under a given load increment. We introduce a new “non-plastic” trial state, which differs from the classical elastic trial state (Simo and Hughes, Computational Inelasticity, Springer-Verlag, 1998) since creep increment is now al- lowed. In order to explicit the “non-plastic” trial state, the creep flow rule, generally non- linear, is solved. From the “non-plastic” trial state, two alternatives can be derived: (i) no plastic increment has been produced (in such a case, the trial state is actually the solution); (ii) there must be plastic increment, and therefore the stress cannot exceed the yield stress. In the last case, the creep flow rule is supplemented by the plastic consistency condition, giving rise to a system of non-linear scalar equations, to be solved for determining the actual plastic and creep increment under the given load.

Within the range of validity of the small strain theory, the strain is additively de- composed in an elastic or reversible strain and an inelastic or irreversible strain. The inelas- tic strain consists of a plastic component quickly developed under loading, and a viscous or creep component that develops slowly under loading. Most frequently, both components are assumed to develop simultaneously following a unique flow rule for the whole inelastic strain according to the Bingham-Norton rheological model, which neglects creep recovery. Under experimental evidence of considerable creep recovery, instantaneous plastic strain and slow creep evolve according their own flow rules. Unlike the case Bingham-Norton models are used, it is no longer possible to define a trial stress state from which it can be determined whether the plastic strain has increased or not under a given load increment. We introduce a new “non-plastic” trial state, which differs from the classical elastic trial state (Simo and Hughes, Computational Inelasticity, Springer-Verlag, 1998) since creep increment is now al- lowed. In order to explicit the “non-plastic” trial state, the creep flow rule, generally non- linear, is solved. From the “non-plastic” trial state, two alternatives can be derived: (i) no plastic increment has been produced (in such a case, the trial state is actually the solution); (ii) there must be plastic increment, and therefore the stress cannot exceed the yield stress. In the last case, the creep flow rule is supplemented by the plastic consistency condition, giving rise to a system of non-linear scalar equations, to be solved for determining the actual plastic and creep increment under the given load.

Palavras-chave:

DOI: 10.5151/meceng-wccm2012-18850

Referências bibliográficas

• [1] J. Lemaître and J.-L. Chaboche. Mechanics of Solid Materials. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
• [2] A. E. Huespe, A. Cardona, N. Nigro, and V. D. Fachinotti. Visco-plastic constitutive models of steel at high temperature. J. Mat. Processing Tech., 102:143–152, 2000.
• [3] V. D. Fachinotti and A. Cardona. Constitutive models of steel under continuous casting conditions. J. Mat. Processing Tech., 135:30–43,
• [4] M. Bellet and V. D. Fachinotti. ALE method for solidification modelling. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 193:4355–4381, 2004.
• [5] V. D. Fachinotti and A. Cardona. A fixed-mesh eulerian.lagrangian approach for stress analysis in continuous casting. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng., 70:728–755, 2007.
• [6] A. Soba and A. Denis. Simulation with DIONISIO 1.0 of thermal and mechanical pelletcladding interaction in nuclear fuel rods. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 374:32–43, 2008.
• [7] K. J. Geelhood, W. G. Luscher, and C. E. Beyer. FRAPCON-3.4: A Computer Code for the Calculation of Steady-State Thermal-Mechanical Behavior of Oxide Fuel Rods for High Burnup. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2011.
• [8] J. C. Simo and T. J. R. Hughes. Computational Inelasticity. Springer-Verlag, 1998.
• [9] O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor. The finite element method. Volume 2: Solid Mechanics. Butterworth-Heinemann, 5th edition, 2000.

Como citar:

Fachinotti, V. D.; Albanesi, A. E.; Alberto Cardona; "RETURN MAPPING FOR CREEP AND PLASTICITY SPLIT", p-2394-2403. In: In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Computational Mechanics [= Blucher Mechanical Engineering Proceedings, v. 1, n. 1]. São Paulo: Blucher, 2014.
ISSN 23580828, DOI 10.5151/meceng-wccm2012-18850