Hi,
When i'm doing a plasticity analysis, I give the input for load against time. This 'time' is in fact not the 'real' time but a 'pseudo' time since I'm not solving mx_dot_dot + kx = F but kx = F , of course 'k' gets updated at each increment (a.k.a. time).
My question is, if I do a creep analysis (say using Norton Bailey law), is the time a 'real' time or still a 'pseudo' time?
Please can anyone help with justification of your reply?
Thanks a lot.
Forums
Even in implicit analysis,
Even in implicit analysis, you may use the increments to be considered as actual time. For instance, if you were to simulate a rate dependent loading (neglecting inertia of course), then you may use adjust the total step time against your specified displacement to make it the required loading rate.
In reply to Even in implicit analysis, by nskatim
My question was in regards to
My question was in regards to creep.
I would say it is the 'real' time since creep models are functions of time. Plasticity of course depends upon whether it is viscoplasticity or rate independent plasticity.
Can anyone confirm, that in creep analysis, the time is indeed the 'real' time?
Creep model refers to strain
Creep model refers to strain rate, which is related to specified displacement and the step time. Properly adjusted 'solver increments' can therefore be taken as actual 'time increments'. I have done that for stress relaxation in the past using Norton-Hoff power law.
thanks
Thanks a lot.
Can you please give an example (in a few lines if possible) of how you adjusted 'solver increments' being equivalent to 'time increments'?
Thanks again