PSI - Issue 18

Yaroslav Dubyk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 18 (2019) 622–629 Yaroslav Dubyk and Iryna Seliverstova / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

626

5





D

m



n m 





 

2

2

2 w C Rm C ln C l n n     w v

cos cos 

M

x

 

(20)

mn

mn

mn



2 2

l R

l

2 6 / M h

2 6 / x M h

b   

/ m N h     ,

bx  

,

,

.

Stresses are obtained trivially:

/ x N h

mx  



3. Results and discussion To test the accuracy and reliability of our equations we created FEM models. As an applied load axial force (see Fig. 1) and pressure (Fig. 2) were used, the nominal stress level was equal to 1 MPa. Below, in Figs. 1-2 a comparison is made for analytical and numerical results. However equivalent load method underestimates the peak stress concentrated value, it predicts quite good the stress profile. The peak stress value can be adjusted by a simple semi analytical correction, as Rinehart and Keating (2007) proposed it for 2D dents. Since the equivalent load method well predicts the stress distribution, it can be used for dent shape parametric study.

0.5 h   ,

60

:

analytical solution;

FEM solution.

Fig. 1. Load – axial force; R=400 мм , h =10 мм ,

l

x l   

Fig. 2. Load – pressure; R=400 мм , h =10 мм ,

0.5 h   ,

60

:

analytical solution;

FEM solution.

l

x l   