Comparison of the linear matching method to Rolls Royce's hierarchical finite element framework for ratchet limit analysis

Michael Lytwyn, Haofeng Chen, Michael Martin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper provides a direct comparison between the Linear Matching Method (LMM) and the numerical procedures currently being employed within the Rolls-Royce Power Engineering (plc) Hierarchical Finite Element Framework (HFEF) for the assessment of shakedown and ratcheting behaviour. These numerical methods include the application of Direct Cyclic Analysis (DCA), utilised in an automated search procedure for load-interaction plot generation and the recently developed Hybrid procedure. The Hybrid procedure is based on a similar premise to the LMM in that the load history is decomposed into cyclic and constant components. The LMM allows for the direct evaluation of shakedown and ratchet limits to be obtained in a traditional Bree load interaction format, along with the subsequent maximum plastic strain range for low-cycle fatigue considerations. Three problems have been used for comparison in this paper; the classic Bree cylinder, a nozzle-in-sphere with a cold media injection transient typical of nuclear power plant loading and a pressurised two-bar structure for multi-axial failure analysis. The accuracy of each method has been verified using ABAQUS step-by-step inelastic analysis. The variations in the implementation strategies associated with each method have also been discussed along with computational efficiency and effectiveness, which show that the LMM has the significant potential to improve analysis speeds via obtaining the ratchet limit boundary directly for a specified level of cyclic loading, instead of conducting an iterative search procedure.
LanguageEnglish
Pages13-22
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
Volume125
Early online date18 Nov 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2015

Fingerprint

Limit Analysis
Ratchet
ABAQUS
Computational efficiency
Nuclear power plants
Failure analysis
Nozzles
Plastic deformation
Numerical methods
Fatigue of materials
Finite Element
Low Cycle Fatigue
Failure Analysis
Cyclic Loading
Nuclear Power Plant
Nozzle
Numerical Procedure
Interaction
Computational Efficiency
Framework

Keywords

  • ratchet limit
  • linear matching method
  • shakedown
  • direct cyclic analysis

Cite this

@article{a97450b5cd0c4a92b0bd36e7a2b18545,
title = "Comparison of the linear matching method to Rolls Royce's hierarchical finite element framework for ratchet limit analysis",
abstract = "This paper provides a direct comparison between the Linear Matching Method (LMM) and the numerical procedures currently being employed within the Rolls-Royce Power Engineering (plc) Hierarchical Finite Element Framework (HFEF) for the assessment of shakedown and ratcheting behaviour. These numerical methods include the application of Direct Cyclic Analysis (DCA), utilised in an automated search procedure for load-interaction plot generation and the recently developed Hybrid procedure. The Hybrid procedure is based on a similar premise to the LMM in that the load history is decomposed into cyclic and constant components. The LMM allows for the direct evaluation of shakedown and ratchet limits to be obtained in a traditional Bree load interaction format, along with the subsequent maximum plastic strain range for low-cycle fatigue considerations. Three problems have been used for comparison in this paper; the classic Bree cylinder, a nozzle-in-sphere with a cold media injection transient typical of nuclear power plant loading and a pressurised two-bar structure for multi-axial failure analysis. The accuracy of each method has been verified using ABAQUS step-by-step inelastic analysis. The variations in the implementation strategies associated with each method have also been discussed along with computational efficiency and effectiveness, which show that the LMM has the significant potential to improve analysis speeds via obtaining the ratchet limit boundary directly for a specified level of cyclic loading, instead of conducting an iterative search procedure.",
keywords = "ratchet limit, linear matching method, shakedown, direct cyclic analysis",
author = "Michael Lytwyn and Haofeng Chen and Michael Martin",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.11.001",
language = "English",
volume = "125",
pages = "13--22",
journal = "International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping",
issn = "0308-0161",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the linear matching method to Rolls Royce's hierarchical finite element framework for ratchet limit analysis

AU - Lytwyn, Michael

AU - Chen, Haofeng

AU - Martin, Michael

PY - 2015/1

Y1 - 2015/1

N2 - This paper provides a direct comparison between the Linear Matching Method (LMM) and the numerical procedures currently being employed within the Rolls-Royce Power Engineering (plc) Hierarchical Finite Element Framework (HFEF) for the assessment of shakedown and ratcheting behaviour. These numerical methods include the application of Direct Cyclic Analysis (DCA), utilised in an automated search procedure for load-interaction plot generation and the recently developed Hybrid procedure. The Hybrid procedure is based on a similar premise to the LMM in that the load history is decomposed into cyclic and constant components. The LMM allows for the direct evaluation of shakedown and ratchet limits to be obtained in a traditional Bree load interaction format, along with the subsequent maximum plastic strain range for low-cycle fatigue considerations. Three problems have been used for comparison in this paper; the classic Bree cylinder, a nozzle-in-sphere with a cold media injection transient typical of nuclear power plant loading and a pressurised two-bar structure for multi-axial failure analysis. The accuracy of each method has been verified using ABAQUS step-by-step inelastic analysis. The variations in the implementation strategies associated with each method have also been discussed along with computational efficiency and effectiveness, which show that the LMM has the significant potential to improve analysis speeds via obtaining the ratchet limit boundary directly for a specified level of cyclic loading, instead of conducting an iterative search procedure.

AB - This paper provides a direct comparison between the Linear Matching Method (LMM) and the numerical procedures currently being employed within the Rolls-Royce Power Engineering (plc) Hierarchical Finite Element Framework (HFEF) for the assessment of shakedown and ratcheting behaviour. These numerical methods include the application of Direct Cyclic Analysis (DCA), utilised in an automated search procedure for load-interaction plot generation and the recently developed Hybrid procedure. The Hybrid procedure is based on a similar premise to the LMM in that the load history is decomposed into cyclic and constant components. The LMM allows for the direct evaluation of shakedown and ratchet limits to be obtained in a traditional Bree load interaction format, along with the subsequent maximum plastic strain range for low-cycle fatigue considerations. Three problems have been used for comparison in this paper; the classic Bree cylinder, a nozzle-in-sphere with a cold media injection transient typical of nuclear power plant loading and a pressurised two-bar structure for multi-axial failure analysis. The accuracy of each method has been verified using ABAQUS step-by-step inelastic analysis. The variations in the implementation strategies associated with each method have also been discussed along with computational efficiency and effectiveness, which show that the LMM has the significant potential to improve analysis speeds via obtaining the ratchet limit boundary directly for a specified level of cyclic loading, instead of conducting an iterative search procedure.

KW - ratchet limit

KW - linear matching method

KW - shakedown

KW - direct cyclic analysis

UR - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308016114001148

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.11.001

DO - 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.11.001

M3 - Article

VL - 125

SP - 13

EP - 22

JO - International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

T2 - International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

JF - International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

SN - 0308-0161

ER -