土木專業畢業設計外文翻譯-建筑結構(編輯修改稿)

　

【文章內容簡介】 ibed above and the viscoplastic material model considering damage [1] implemented recently by J. Aktaa. Thereby, the following load case has been used: Tcc = 600 (873K)。 the plasma heating 750 kW/m2 and the coolant pressure P = 50 MPa (500 bar). It was assumed on the basis of the study reported in the previous section that such abnormal high loads should cause an essential plastic deformation. Each cycle consists of four steps: (1) a heating and application of the pressure, 30 sec。 (2) a holding at the high temperature (HT) 400 sec, (3) a cooling to the RT, 100 sec and, finally (4) a holding at the RT 1400 sec. Note that the steps (2) and (4) are not relevant for the ABAQUSown timeindependent material model. It was possible to simulate 300 cycles with the ABAQUSown model and only 100 cycles with the UMAT because of the high cpu time needed. The results have been generated in a table format along the path AB,CD,GF and KL depicted in fig. 1. A followup examination has shown that the highest plastic strain in the model occurs near the point L of the path KL as in fig. 4 (on the right). A change of the maximum equivalent plastic strain near the point L within the first 100 cycles is depicted in fig. 5 for both material models used. A detailed investigation shows an almost linear increase of the equivalent plastic strain in the case of the ABAQUSown material model. However, the increase lies between and for the first 300 cycle. The application of the UMAT leads evidently to considerably higher plastic strains due to the creep and damage of the material. Note that the values of the variable PEMAG (the magnitude of the plastic strain) after the It heating are quite similar for both models, see fig. 5. The behavior of the maximum von Mises stress along the path KL for the first 10 cycles is illustrated in fig. 6 for both material models. For the same reason, the von Mises stress obtained using the UMAT is considerably less than in the case if the ABAQUSown model is applied. Note that the values of the von Mises stress are quite identical for both models after the Ist heating, see also fig. 6. The ABAQUSown model also leads to a material softening, which is however not as distinctive ( MPa/300 cycles) as in the case of the UtM4AT. Only more conservative results obtained under an application of the UM\AT are used below for the verification of some design rules. As follows from the curve depicted in fig 5, the magnitude of the plastic strain seems to reach a saturated value. However, to get a definite answer, more cycles (say 300) should be simulated. 隧道掘進機的循環行為模式進行了研究同時使用 Abaqus中，自己的材料模型上面所述的粘塑性材料模型考慮損害 [1]實施最近由 J. Aktaa。因此，下面的負荷情況下使用了：部隊派遣國 = 600 （ 873K）的 750 kW/m2等離子體加熱和冷卻劑的壓力 P = 50兆帕（ 500桿）。 正是基于這項研究報告的基礎上假設上一節中，這種不正常的高負荷，應引起必要的塑性變形。 每個周期包括：四個步驟（ 1）加熱和壓力， 30秒應用 。（ 2）在高溫（羥色胺） 400秒，（ 3）持有冷卻的 RT， 100 秒，最后（ 4）持有的逆轉錄 1400 秒。請注意，步驟（ 2）及（ 4）不為 Abaqus中，自己的時間，獨立的材料模型相關。 噸是可能的模擬與 Abaqus 中，自己的模式， 并與因高 CPU時間 UMAT 只有 100個循環周期所需的 300。結果已經產生，沿著抗體，光盤，綠，吉隆坡圖所示的路徑表的格式。 1。一個后續檢查表明，該模型中的塑性應變最高點附近發生的路徑吉隆坡 L為圖。 4（右側）。阿最高點附近的等效塑性應變蜇頭 100 內循環的變化是描繪圖。 5 兩種材料的模型。一份詳細的調查顯示一個在 Abaqus中等效塑性應變的情況幾乎線性增加自己的材料模型。但是，這一增長介乎 3和 300的第一個周期 3。 該 UMAT 導致明顯的應用大大提高塑性應變由于 蠕變和物質損失。請注意， PEMAG變量的值（即塑性應變后，它的規模）加熱十分相似，這兩個模型，見圖。 5。 在最高馮米塞斯沿的前 10次循環的道路吉隆坡強調行為圖所示。 6兩種材料模型。 出于同樣的原因，馮米塞斯應力使用 UMAT 得到大大低于案件，如果 Abaqus 中，自己的模式應用。請注意，馮米塞斯應力值是相當后 IST的加熱兩種型號相同，也見圖。 6。在 Abaqus中，自己的模式也導致材料軟化，但它作為獨特（ 11 沒有。 5 MPa/300周期）為在 UtM4AT 情況。 只有在一個比較保守的密歇 根大學 \取得的成果在應用使用下面的一些設計規則的驗證。由圖 5所示的曲線如下，對塑性應變程度似乎達到飽和值。但是，為了得到一個明確的答案，更多的周期（例如 300）應模擬。 OF DESIGN RULES The aim is now to pare the results discussed above with a prediction of some design rules based on linearelastic simulations. To apply the design rules, Smt, the minimum of Sm and St should be evaluated. Thereby, Sm is the lowest stress intensity at a given temperature among the timeindependent s