PSI - Issue 35

Sˇ eruga et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000–000

5

Domen Šeruga et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 35 (2022) 150–158

154

Fig. 4. Equivalent von Mises stress in the pipe bend in a) load step 1, b) load step 2, c) load step 3, d) load step 4, e) load step 5, f) load step 6, g) load step 7 and h) load step 8. The displacement field is magnified by a factor of 25.

Fig. 5. Maximal principal strain in the pipe bend in a) load step 3 and b) load step 7. The displacement field is magnified by a factor of 25.

8 (Figs. 4b, 4d, 4f and 4h). The thermal e ff ect on the pipe is more pronounced if the strains are compared. In Fig. 5, maximal principal strains are examined for load steps 3 and 7. Here, the same mechanical loading is applied whereas the temperature di ff ers. It can be noticed that higher strains occur at 300 ◦ C which is in accordance with the material properties (Fig. 3). The stress-strain response is examined in detail at control points 1 and 2 (Figs. 6 and 7). The mechanical load has been chosen so that in combination with the internal pressure the material remains elastic at control point 1. On the contrary, an elastoplastic material response occurs at control point 2. At control point 1, the highest strain response occurs in the normal direction to the surface (strain-tensor component ε 11 ). Since this is the radial direction to the surface, the value of the stress-tensor component σ 11 remains low. Due to the mechanical load however, stress-tensor