Advertisement

Shakedown Analysis of 3D Frames with an Effective Treatment of the Load Combinations

  • Giovanni GarceaEmail author
  • Leonardo Leonetti
  • Raffaele Casciaro
Chapter

Abstract

Using the Melan static theorem and an algorithm based on dual decomposition, a formulation for the shakedown analysis of 3D frames is proposed. An efficient treatment of the load combinations and an accurate and simple definition of the cross-section yield function are employed to increase effectiveness and to make shakedown analysis an affordable design tool. The section yield function, obtained by its support function values associated with presso-flexural mechanisms, is defined as the Minkowski sum of ellipsoids. The return mapping process, resulting from the dual decomposition, is solved at the element level by means of an algorithm based again on the dual decomposition. It allows the separation of the problem at the ellipsoid level and the use of a simple and inexpensive radial return mapping process for its solution. A series of numerical tests are presented to show both the accuracy and the effectiveness of the proposed formulation.

Keywords

Convex Hull Proximal Point Algorithm Load Combination Elastic Domain Elastoplastic Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received regional funding from the European Communitys Seventh Framework Programme FP7-FESR: “PIA Pacchetti Integrati di Agevolazione industria, artigianato e servizi” in collaboration with the Newsoft s.a.s. (www.newsoft-eng.it).

References

  1. 1.
    Zouain N (2004) Shakedown and safety assessment. Encyclopedia of computational mechanics, vol 2. Wiley, New York, pp 291–334Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skordeli M-A, Bisbos C (2010) Limit and shakedown analysis of 3D steel frames via approximate ellipsoidal yield surfaces. Eng Struct 32(6):1556–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nguyen A, Hachemi A, Weichert D (2008) Application of the interior-point method to shakedown analysis of pavements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 75(4):414–439CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bleyer J, De Buhan P (2013) Yield surface approximation for lower and upper bound yield design of 3d composite frame structures. Comput Struct 129:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malena M, Casciaro R (2008) Finite element shakedown analysis of reinforced concrete 3d frames. Comput Struct 86(11–12):1176–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zouain N, Borges L, Silveira JL (2002) An algorithm for shakedown analysis with nonlinear yield functions. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(2324):2463–2481. doi: 10.1016/S0045-7825(01)00374-7 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vu D, Yan A, Nguyen-Dang H (2004) A primal-dual algorithm for shakedown analysis of structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193(42–44):4663–4674CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tran T, Liu G, Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen-Thoi T (2010) An edge-based smoothed finite element method for primal-dual shakedown analysis of structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 82(7):917–938zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simon J-W, Kreimeier M, Weichert D (2013) A selective strategy for shakedown analysis of engineering structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 94:985–1014CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon J-W, Weichert D (2012) Shakedown analysis of engineering structures with limited kinematical hardening. Int J Solids Struct 49(15–16):2177–2186CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon J-W, Weichert D (2012) Shakedown analysis with multidimensional loading spaces. Comput Mech 49(4):477–485CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Casciaro R, Garcea G (2002) An iterative method for shakedown analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(49–50):5761–5792CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcea G, Armentano G, Petrolo S, Casciaro R (2005) Finite element shakedown analysis of two-dimensional structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 63(8):1174–1202. doi: 10.1002/nme.1316 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garcea G, Leonetti L (2011) A unified mathematical programming formulation of strain driven and interior point algorithms for shakedown and limit analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 88:1085–1111CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bilotta A, Leonetti L, Garcea G (2011) Three field finite elements for the elastoplastic analysis of 2D continua. Finite Elem Anal Des 47(10):1119–1130CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosati L, Marmo F, Serpieri R (2008) Enhanced solution strategies for the ultimate strength analysis of composite steel-concrete sections subject to axial force and biaxial bending. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197(9–12):1033–1055CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genoese A, Genoese A, Bilotta A, Garcea G (2013) A mixed beam model with non-uniform warpings derived from the Saint Venànt rod. Comput Struct 121:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garcea G, Madeo A, Zagari G, Casciaro R (2009) Asymptotic post-buckling Fem analysis using corotational formulation. Int J Solids Struct 46(2):377–397CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petrolo A, Casciaro R (2004) 3D beam element based on Saint Venant’s rod theory. Comput Struct 82(29–30):2471–2481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Genoese A, Genoese A, Bilotta A, Garcea G (2014) A geometrically exact beam model with non-uniform warping coherently derived from the Saint Venant rod. Eng Struct 68(0):33–46. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.024, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029614001175
  21. 21.
    Genoese A, Genoese A, Bilotta A, Garcea G (2014) A generalized model for heterogeneous and anisotropic beams including section distortions. Thin-Walled Struct 74:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Genoese A, Genoese A, Bilotta A, Garcea G (2014) A composite beam model including variable warping effects derived from a generalized Saint Venant solution. Compos Struct 110:140–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    European Union (1991) EN 1991—Eurocode 1: Actions on structuresGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bilotta A, Leonetti L, Garcea G (2012) An algorithm for incremental elastoplastic analysis using equality constrained sequential quadratic programming. Comput Struct 102–103:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    König J (1987) Shakedown of elastic-plastic structures. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Garcea
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leonardo Leonetti
    • 1
  • Raffaele Casciaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Modellistica per L’IngegneriaUniversità della CalabriaCosenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations