Question

Distinguish between uniaxial, biaxial and multiaxial prestressing

Answer 1

An earlier paper by the authors evaluated the performance of several coupled models in simulating a series of uniaxial and biaxial ratcheting responses. This paper evaluates the performance of various kinematic hardening rules in an uncoupled model for the same set of ratcheting responses. A modified version of the Dafalias–Popov uncoupled model has been demonstrated to perform well for uniaxial ratcheting simulation. However, its performance in multiaxial ratcheting simulation is significantly influenced by the kinematic hardening rules employed in the model. Performances of eight different kinematic hardening rules, when engaged with the modified Dafalias–Popov model, are evaluated against a series of rate-independent multiaxial ratcheting responses of cyclically stabilized carbon steels. The kinematic hardening rules proposed by Armstrong–Frederick, Voyiadjis–Sivakumar, Phillips, Tseng–Lee, Kaneko, Xia–Ellyin, Chaboche and Ohno–Wang are examined. The Armstrong–Frederick rule performs reasonably for one type of the biaxial ratcheting response, but fails in others. The Voyiadjis–Sivakumar rule and its constituents, the Phillips and the Tseng–Lee rules, can not simulate the biaxial ratcheting responses. The Kaneko rule, composed of the Ziegler and the prestress directions, and the Xia–Ellyin rule, composed of the Ziegler and Mroz directions, also fail to simulate the biaxial ratcheting responses. The Chaboche rule, with three decomposed Armstrong–Frederick rules, performs the best for the whole set of ratcheting responses. The Ohno–Wang rule performs well for the data set, except for one biaxial response where it predicts shakedown with subsequent reversal of ratcheting.