2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.06.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Steps to increase practical applicability of PragTic software

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The values in the brackets are constant and do not change with every loading cycle. Generally, we can obtain the fatigue strength values from different sources, e.g., Boller and Seeger [ 21 ] material table data or websites which publish experimental fatigue test results, such as the Fatlim selector explained by Tomcala et al [ 27 ]. In the case of R = 0, the model is simplified into the form: …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The values in the brackets are constant and do not change with every loading cycle. Generally, we can obtain the fatigue strength values from different sources, e.g., Boller and Seeger [ 21 ] material table data or websites which publish experimental fatigue test results, such as the Fatlim selector explained by Tomcala et al [ 27 ]. In the case of R = 0, the model is simplified into the form: …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The IA can seem to be more computationally demanding due to the potential requirement of a small integration step to reduce the computational integration error. Tomc ˇala et al 40 have recently shown that the stability of results of the IA is better in comparison with critical plane solutions when the number of evaluated planes is intentionally decreased to quicken the calculation. An interesting variant of this approach was recently introduced by Albinmousa and Al Hussain, 41 who analyze the damage on all planes perpendicular to the surface and integrate those partial damages over whole range of plane rotation angles 0-2π.…”
Section: Multiaxial Stress Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The IA can seem to be more computationally demanding due to the potential requirement of a small integration step to reduce the computational integration error. Tomčala et al 40 have recently shown that the stability of results of the IA is better in comparison with critical plane solutions when the number of evaluated planes is intentionally decreased to quicken the calculation.…”
Section: Concurring Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason for this could be the computational cost -the integration scheme could be more demanding on analyzing the space than the widely-used maximization procedure that is relevant for critical plane schemes. Tomčala et al prove in their sensitivity study [44] that if the same computational error induced by discrete evaluation plane-by-plane is admitted for the critical plane and for integral concepts, the number of planes to be evaluated is approximately two times lower for the integral solution. Kenmeugne et al [45] proposed that the optimum application of the integral concept can be assumed to be for cases of frequent principal directions rotations, which are intrinsic e.g.…”
Section: Integral Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%