Addendum to reply to Rusch Jungwirth and Hilsdorf's second discussion of the paper “On the choice of creep function for standard recommendations on practical analysis of structures”

✍ Scribed by Zdeněk P. Bažant; ElMamoun Osman

• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Year: 1978
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 92 KB
• Volume: 8
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0008-8846
• DOI: 10.1016/0008-8846(78)90068-6

✦ Synopsis

This addendum is published in response to a suggestion by Dr. K. Willam, Stuttgart, to whom the writers are obliged for poi~tlng out that the reference to Argyris, Pister, and Willam's report in the first section of preceding reply I was incomplete and could have been misinterpreted.

In that report the term "product model" for creep did not have the same meaning as previously used in the literature.

It actually referred to a degenerate form of the creep memory function, i.e., to the exponential series representation of aging material response to a unit stress impulse (see Eqs. 2.39 and 3.36 of that report), and not to a creep function chosen at the outset in the form of a product ~(t')F(t-t') (although this form can be obtained from Argyris et al.'s exponential series by integration).

This takes, however, nothing away from the concluslon I that the product form in the form of the double power law agrees with Wylfa vessel test data distinctly better than does the summation form, although the differences between the two fits are not significant in view of experimental scatter.