Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Con AIAA 2002-1327

AIAA-2002-1327
22-25 April 2002, Denver, Colorado

NEUBER’S RULE ACCURACY IN PREDICTING NOTCH STRESS-


STRAIN BEHAVIOR FOR SEVERAL GEOMETRIES

D.T. Rusk* and P.C. Hoffman†


Structures Division (AIR 4.3.3)
Naval Air Systems Command
Patuxent River, Maryland, 20670-1906

ABSTRACT S2 - stress at linear plastic hardening


S70E - stress at 0.70E intersection
A numerical investigation has been undertaken to
quantify the potential error in the use of Neuber’s rule ∆S - nominal cyclic stress amplitude
in approximating stresses and strains for local stress ∆ε - local cyclic strain amplitude
concentration regions that undergo plastic deformation.
∆σ - local cyclic stress amplitude
A flat plate with an open hole, a round bar with a
circumferential notch and a double-lap splice joint with ε - local strain
three rows of pins were all modeled using finite ε2 - strain at linear plastic hardening
element techniques, for two different material types. ν - Poisson’s ratio
The local notch stress and strain values from the models
were each compared to the notch strain values predicted σ - local stress
using Neuber’s rule. The results show that Neuber’s
approximation significantly overpredicts local strain INTRODUCTION
when plasticity (0.8% to 2.0% strain) is encountered in
the notch. The state of multiaxial stress in the notch Shipboard operations of naval aircraft demand that
region significantly affects the Neuber strain prediction structural integrity management ensure safety and
error, but not in a consistent manner. Different material readiness through a safe life concept. The underpinning
stress-strain curves also have an effect on the strain of the Naval Air Systems Command’s (NAVAIR) safe
prediction error, but to a lesser extent. The results life methodology is the strain-life1 approach to
indicate that using finite element solutions in the place predicting the initiation of fatigue cracks under cyclic
of Neuber’s rule to estimate notch strain behavior may loading. Strain-life calculations are currently
significantly reduce the modeling error (epistemic implemented in a service life-tracking program whose
uncertainty) of a probabilistic strain-life methodology. predictions are used as a basis for decision-making on
when an aircraft is nearing the end of its usable service
life.
NOMENCLATURE
In the past, performance obsolescence was the leading
E - Young’s modulus cause of removal of an air platform from the naval
Et - strain hardening modulus aviation inventory. However, in the post-cold-war
budgetary and operational environment, the naval
Kf - fatigue notch factor
aviation community may be required to delay vehicle
Kt - elastic stress concentration factor retirement until aircraft reach the limits of their
Kε - local strain concentration factor predicted fatigue lives.
Kσ - local stress concentration factor In order to manage air vehicle fleets to these new,
n - strain hardening exponent historically untested lifetime boundaries, the
S - nominal stress uncertainties of the fatigue life prediction
methodologies must be clearly and quantitatively
Sy - stress at proportional limit understood. The problem is that the current
implementation of the strain-life approach in predicting
fatigue life is deterministic in nature. As a result, life
*
Aerospace Engineer, Senior Member. predictions do not account for the inherent variability of

Aerospace Engineer, Member. all of the design and operational parameters that
This paper is a declared work of the U.S. Government contribute to fatigue failures in airframe components
and is not subject to copyright protection in the United (aleatory uncertainty). In addition, the strain-life
States. methodology is an empirical approximation of the true

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
physical processes by which fatigue cracks nucleate and Topper, et al. modified Neuber’s Rule for use in fatigue
grow in metallic components. Models to accurately loading, where the theoretical stress concentration
describe the physics of the small crack nucleation and factor can be replaced by the theoretical fatigue notch
growth process remain elusive, and the strain-life factor, and the static stress and strain parameters are
methodology remains to date the best general-purpose replaced by their cyclic stress and strain amplitude
method of approximating fatigue crack initiation in a counterparts.4 If the net section stresses and strains are
structural component. The empiricism of the strain-life elastic, Eqn. 1 can be rewritten to relate the applied load
method introduces additional uncertainty to the fatigue to the local notch stresses and strains (Eqn. 2).
life prediction in the form of modeling errors (epistemic
uncertainty), which can only be quantified by (K f
∆S )
2

= ∆σ∆ε (2)
comparing detailed life predictions to component
failures experienced the field. This is not easily
E
accomplished, since most components will not initiate Because of its simplicity, this method of predicting
failures until near the end of their useful lives, and notch stress and strain behavior has been widely used in
modeling error estimates for one component may be strain-life based crack initiation predictions. However,
the underlying theory of Neuber was derived only for a
substantially different for other components with
different geometries, loads and material properties. single notch geometry, but has historically been applied
to a wide variety of fatigue problems. In more general
To meet the challenge of evaluating life uncertainty in situations of the type encountered in aerospace
aging aircraft, a research effort is underway to extend structures, strict geometric similitude may not be
the current strain-life approach with the development of satisfied for components with complicated geometries,
a probability-based strain life model. The probabilistic or that do not operate under purely plane stress
model will quantify the scatter in the basic variables of conditions.
the fatigue life calculation, and will estimate the
modeling error using laboratory data from several Due to the potential of encountering significant
modeling error associated with the liberal use of
aircraft component and subcomponent tests. The goal
is a methodology that will enable management to assess Neuber’s rule in strain-life calculations, a research
the overall structural reliability of an air vehicle. effort has been initiated to characterize the uncertainty
of Neuber’s rule for notch geometries of a few
Steps to develop methods of estimating uncertainty in characteristic aerospace structural details. The results
the basic fatigue life variables have recently been are applicable to any static stress or fatigue analyses
undertaken by the authors. Preliminary work in that seek to quantify plasticity in a local area on a
modeling a probabilistic strain-life curve for AA 7050- component.
T7451 has been proceeding2. Efforts to characterize
uncertainty in the other basic fatigue life variables are
ongoing. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION
Research to characterize and reduce modeling errors of Neuber’s equation for stress and strain concentrations
a probabilistic life prediction method is centered on the under non-linear deformation was analytically derived
existing implementation of the deterministic strain-life in Ref. 3 for a 2-D notched prismatic body under pure
model. In evaluating the fatigue life of a component, shear stress conditions. The use of modern finite
the nominal loads on a structure must be reduced to element techniques allow the original theory to be
local stress and strain values in the neighborhood of investigated for its applicability to more general states
notches or stress concentrations where fatigue cracks of stress, where multiaxial stresses may exist at the
are expected to initiate. If the neighboring stresses in surface of an arbitrary notch geometry. The following
the notch region are purely elastic, the theoretical stress analysis is limited to problems where the nominal
concentration factor is used to estimate notch stresses loading is unidirectional, and where the stress state in
and strains. However, if the material in the notch the notch region is dominated by a single principal
region is plastically loaded, the stress and strain fields direction, with the principal stress directions remaining
will no longer be proportional. Such cases are typically fixed as the structure is loaded and unloaded
dealt with using Neuber’s Rule3, which relates the (proportional loading). Plasticity is limited to the
theoretical stress concentration in the notch to the general vicinity of the notch region, and the
geometric mean of the local stress and strain deformations in the remaining structure are purely
concentrations (Eqn. 1). elastic. These conditions allow the use of the simpler
Deformation Theory of Plastic Flow in place of the
K t = Kσ Kε (1) more general Incremental Flow Theory.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
One of the limitations of Deformation Theory of curve was input into StressCheck® using the Ramberg-
Plasticity is that load reversals are not allowed in the Osgood option. The curve for AA 7050 does not fit the
analysis. The finite element model is thus limited to Ramberg-Osgood form, in that the stress-strain curve
solutions representing an initial loading from a state of flattens out after yielding occurs. This curve was input
zero stress-strain. The cyclic form of Neuber’s rule into StressCheck® using the 5-parameter option, which
(Eqn. 2) must therefore be converted back to the assumes a linear plastic strain-hardening coefficient,
monotonic form (Eqn. 3) to present the analysis results. and uses a cubic spline to interpolate the transition
Fatigue notch factor effects are also ignored for this region between the linear elastic and linear plastic
analysis. portions of the curve. Material property values as input
into the finite element code are shown below, with the
( Kt S )2 Ramberg-Osgood form shown in Eqn. 4.
= σε (3)
E
Three different structural configurations are presented 7050-T7451 Al
for analysis and comparison. The first is a flat plate
with a round hole through the center (Fig. 1a). The E = 10,050 Ksi ν = 0.33
plate is thick enough so that pure plane stress
conditions do not hold through the thickness. The Sy = 49 Ksi Et = 548 Ksi
second structure is a round bar with a circumferential S2 = 66.3 Ksi ε2 = 0.010
notch under tension (Fig. 1b). This geometry is similar
to specimens used in stress-life testing to examine stress
7075-T651 Al
concentration effects on fatigue. The third structure is a
double lap-splice joint with three rows of pins (Fig. 1c). E = 10,150 Ksi ν = 0.33
The analysis tool used for all three models is the
StressCheck® p-version finite element code, which uses S70E = 81.5 Ksi n = 13.5
a Deformation Plasticity law, and can model fastened
joints with material non-linearities. The linear model n

ε = + 70 E  
solutions all use the maximum p = 8 element order as a 3S σ σ
E 7 E  S 70 E
 (4)
starting point for the non-linear solutions. The error in
energy norm is less than 1% for all of the linear 
solutions. The non-linear solutions are run with 20 load
steps for each case. Peak local notch strains vary NOTCHED FLAT PLATE
between 1-2% (in/in) in the maximum load cases for all
A notched flat plate was chosen to be modeled as an
solutions. Stress solution relative convergence error is
initial demonstration to investigate the effect that non-
less than 0.5% for all non-linear solutions.
plane stress conditions have on the accuracy of
In Neuber’s original analysis, a single non-linear Neuber’s rule. The plate dimensions are 4.0 in. wide by
deformation law was used to model material behavior. 6.0 in. high, with a 0.25 in. diameter hole in the center.
In this work, two different material types were used for The plate thickness is 0.25 in. The 3-D, 1/8 symmetry
each structure to investigate the effect that differing model was created with nodes located at the point of
elastic-plastic stress-strain curves have on the notch maximum stress concentration in the notch, at both the
solutions. The choice of whether to use the monotonic notch edge and at the mid-plane of the plate thickness.
or cyclic stress-strain curve for a material depends on The theoretical stress concentration factor for such a
whether the model solutions are to be used in a plate in pure plane-stress was calculated using Roark’s
subsequent fatigue analysis. For the examples solutions,6 and compared to the elastic stress
investigated here, cyclic stress-strain curves are used to concentration factors extracted from the finite element
demonstrate the Neuber error effects on a notch fatigue model in Table 1.
analysis, however the monotonic stress-strain curve will
work equally well. Cyclic stress-strain curves for AA Table 1. Elastic Stress Concentrations from FEM
7050-T7451 plate were generated by the authors using
incremental step tests of uniform gage round bars, up to Theoretical Notch Notch
2.0% strain half-amplitude. A cyclic stress-strain curve Mid-Plane Edge
for AA 7075-T651 was generated using data from Kt 2.82 2.97 2.5
Boller and Seeger.5 Both curves are shown in Fig. 2. A
Ramberg-Osgood form is used to model the AA 7075
curve, with the parameters taken from Ref. 5. This ®
StressCheck is a registered trademark of Engineering
Software Research & Development, Inc.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Correlation of Neuber’s rule with finite element of the local stress-strain curve values extracted from the
solutions in Fig. 3 show that the local stress-strain finite element model. The iterations converged to less
product deviates from the theory as plasticity is than 10-6 relative error. The resulting calibration curves
increasingly encountered in the notch. The notch are plotted in Fig. 4 for the notched plate edge, and in
midplane correlation is somewhat better than the Fig. 5 for the notched plate mid-plane. Both charts
uniaxial stress correlation at the notch edge, with the show that Neuber’s approximation significantly
transverse stresses at the notch mid-plane varying from overpredicts the notch strain response under uniaxial
11-22% of the first principal stress at the notch surface. and biaxial stress states. These results are similar to
Correlation for the AA 7075 material is also somewhat notch strain calibrations reported by Dowling, et al. for
better than for AA 7050. This is a result of the two different types of steel.7 Relative error in the notch
differences in the stress-strain curve shapes of the two strain prediction is plotted in Fig. 6, with the error at the
materials. Also, the higher yield strength of AA 7075 notch edge being larger than at the midplane. This
means that the plastic zone in the notch will be smaller shows that for this particular example, biaxial stresses
for this material at a given load level. do not have a detrimental effect on Neuber
approximation accuracy relative to plane stress
For fatigue life calculations, it is desirable to have a
predictions.
calibration chart that correlates the nominal applied
load to the notch strain in the principal direction. Use
of a finite element model yields local strain values that CIRCUMFERENTIAL NOTCHED ROD
can be plotted directly as a function of load. In the case
of Neuber’s rule, Eqn. 3 forms a set of hyperbolas that Use of analytical methods to derive the equations of
intersect the stress-strain curve at the values of stress Neuber’s rule require a simple geometric configuration
and strain in the notch. The stress-strain curve and Eqn. for analysis. The geometry used in Ref. 3 is that of a 2-
3 are then iterated to solve for the notch stresses and D symmetric notched prismatic body under shear stress.
strains at a given applied load. Unfortunately, there are few aerospace structures where
this type of model can be readily applied. A more
At the edge of the notch in the plate, the cyclic stress- useful configuration is that of a round bar with a
strain curve derived from axial coupon tests can be used circumferential notch under tension (Fig. 7). For this
directly in the iteration, but at the mid-plane of the example, the bar is 1.0 in. in diameter, with a 0.030 in.
notch, the cyclic stress-strain curve must be modified to notch radius, 0.23 in. notch depth, and 60° notch angle.
account for the biaxial state of stress at the notch The elastic stress concentration taken from the finite
surface. Lacking a finite element model to perform the element model is Kt = 3.3.
biaxial correction, Hooke’s law can be applied to the
linear portion of the curve, and deformation plasticity Neuber’s rule correlations for the two material types are
theory can be applied to the non-linear portion of the plotted in Fig. 8, and are similar to the notch mid-plane
curve, but the transverse strain must be estimated based correlations of the flat plate. This is because there are
on the thickness of the plate. If plane strain conditions large tensile hoop stresses present in the circumferential
are assumed at the mid-plane of the plate, this may notch specimen due to in-plane bending at the surface
introduce additional error in the notch calibration of the notch region. The hoop stresses are 67% of the
relation for moderately thick plates that do not develop principal stress under elastic load, and 57% of the
pure plane strain conditions in the center. For the principal stress under notch plasticity. The Neuber
examples illustrated here, the local stress-strain curve notch strain calibrations were derived using the same
was extracted from the finite element model at the point methods as in the notched plate example, and are
of interest, and used to derive the notch strain plotted in Fig. 9. These results are also similar to the
calibration relations for Neuber’s rule. It is recognized notch mid-plane results of the flat plate. Relative strain
that requiring a finite element model of the local notch error in the Neuber approximation is plotted in Fig. 10,
area to obtain the corrected stress-strain curve defeats and is noticeably higher than for the notched plate mid-
the purpose of using Neuber’s approximation, but this plane results, probably because of the large hoop
was done for these examples to ensure a favorable stresses in the notched round bar.
comparison between Neuber’s rule and the finite
element solutions.
LAP SPLICE JOINT
The Neuber notch strain calibrations were solved in
MATLAB® (Ver. 6), using a cubic spline interpolation To investigate the accuracy of Neuber’s rule on a built-
up structure, a double-lap splice joint with three rows of
pins was chosen to be modeled. This type of problem
®
MATLAB is a registered trademark of The can be idealized as a single flat plate with a loaded pin
MathWorks, Inc. in the hole, but will be analyzed here with a half-

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
symmetry model of the entire joint to incorporate the type strain hardening behavior of the AA 7075 material.
correct pin loading at the most highly stressed hole. This characteristic results in a larger plastic zone for the
The finite element model of the joint is shown in Fig. same given notch geometry.
11. The plates are 1.0 in. wide, with 1.0 in. spacing
The state of multiaxial stress in the notch region affects
between the pins. The pins are 0.25 in. diameter, with
the Neuber strain prediction error, but not in a
zero interference in all of the holes. Pin material is
consistent manner. The strain prediction error curves
steel, with a modulus of 30 Msi. The center plate is
for the lap splice joint fall between the curves for the
0.125 in. thick, and the splice plates are 0.063 in. thick.
flat plate notch edge and mid-plane. This is most likely
Due to limitations in the finite element code, only
a result of the differences in the second principal
planar elasticity problems can be modeled using the
stresses for the two examples. The flat plate notch mid-
fastener elements, so all of the plates assume plane
plane has a tensile transverse stress, and the splice
stress conditions. Pin friction is ignored in the analysis.
plates have a compressive radial stress.
For the maximum combined pin bearing and bypass
The circumferentially notched round bar has a strain
case, the most highly loaded holes in the center plate
prediction error curve that is between the flat plate
are at the outermost pins from the symmetry plane, and
notch edge and the splice joint curves. The
for the splice plates, the innermost pins from the
proportionately larger second principal stresses
symmetry plane. Since the splice plates are half the
contribute to the increased strain prediction error as
thickness of the center plate, the stresses at the most
compared to the other examples that have second
highly loaded holes in each plate are equivalent. The
principal stresses that are proportionately smaller. The
elastic stress concentration taken from the finite
flat plate notch edge results show that the uniaxial
element model is Kt = 2.82 at the edge of the hole.
stress case may give the worst strain prediction error
Neuber’s rule correlations for the two material types are
when compared to multiaxial stress cases.
plotted in Fig. 12, and are similar to the notch mid-
plane correlations of the flat plate. Although the plates
in the splice joint assume plane stress conditions, the APPLICATION
pins exert a radial compressive stress on the hole edges
at locations normal to the applied load. The radial The previous analysis results are applicable to cases of
stresses vary in magnitude from 8-20% of the first monotonic loading from an initial state of zero stress
principal stress at the notch surface. The resulting and strain. To apply these results to cases of cyclic
biaxial state of stress is similar in proportion to the flat loading, the Neuber relation of Eqn. 3 must be replaced
plate notch mid-plane stresses, hence the similarity in by it’s cyclic counterpart (Eqn. 2). Variables are then
Neuber’s rule correlations. expressed as a function of stress, strain and load
amplitudes. An example of a notch fatigue analysis
The Neuber notch strain calibrations and relative strain using Neuber’s rule is shown in Bannantine.8 To apply
error curves are plotted in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. the finite element results to a notch fatigue analysis
These results are similar to the relations plotted using the strain-life approach, a polynomial curve fit of
previously for the other examples. the notch strain calibration chart can be performed to
give an equation that relates applied load to the local
RESULTS notch strain. For cyclic loading, Massing-type material
behavior is assumed, and the strain and load values on
The results of the notch strain analyses for the three the calibration chart must be doubled to give the notch
structural details investigated here show that Neuber’s strain amplitude as a function of load amplitude. The
approximation significantly overpredicts local strain same approach to notch strain calibration can be used in
when plasticity is encountered. The amount of strain the case of Neuber’s rule, and would eliminate the need
error in the approximation is strongly influenced by the to iterate Neuber’s relation (Eqn. 3) with the stress-
multiaxial state of stress at the notch surface, and by the strain curve to find the notch stress and strain at each
shape of the elastic-plastic stress-strain curve. Plots of load reversal.
strain prediction error as a function of structural
geometry are shown in Figs. 15 and 16 for the two
material types investigated. The AA 7050 aluminum CONCLUSIONS
data show a wider range of strain error scatter and curve The results of the notch strain analyses for the three
shapes than for the AA 7075 aluminum. This is structural details investigated here show that Neuber’s
because the small value of the cyclic strain hardening approximation significantly overpredicts local strain
modulus for AA 7050 leads to little stiffness in the when plasticity (0.8% to 2.0% strain) is encountered in
plastic strain range relative to the Ramberg-Osgood the notch. The state of multiaxial stress in the notch

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
region significantly affects the Neuber strain prediction REFERENCES
error, but not in a consistent manner. The shape of the
elastic-plastic stress-strain curve also has an effect, but 1
Dowling, N.E. and Thangjitham, S., “An Overview
to a lesser extent than the multiaxial stress state. It is and Discussion of Basic Methodology for Fatigue,”
therefore recommended that error estimates of Neuber’s Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 31st Volume, edited
approximation for notch strain be evaluated on a case- by G.R. Halford and J.P. Gallagher, STP 1389,
by-case basis for any combination of structural ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 3-36.
geometry or material properties.
2
The effect that the Neuber approximation error has on a Rusk, D.T. and Hoffman, P.C., “Developments in
subsequent fatigue life calculation is highly dependent Probability-Based Strain-Life Analysis,” presented at
on the loading spectrum that the notch area is exposed the 5th Joint NASA/FAA/DoD Conference on Aging
to. For load spectrums with a large percentage of Aircraft, Kissimmee, Florida, 18 Sept. 2001.
plastic strain reversals, or for spectrums with a small
3
percentage of plastic strain reversals that result in large Neuber, H., “Theory of Stress Concentration for
residual stresses for subsequent elastic strain reversals, Shear-Strained Prismatical Bodies with Arbitrary
Neuber error may lead to significant over or under- Nonlinear Stress-Strain Laws,” Journal of Applied
conservatism in the resulting fatigue life calculations. Mechanics, ASME Transactions, Vol. E28, Dec.
For load spectrums with peak strain amplitudes that 1961, pp. 544-550.
have only a small amount of plasticity, Neuber error
4
may contribute very little to the resulting fatigue life Topper, T.H., Wetzel, R.M. and Morrow, J.,
calculation. “Neuber’s Rule Applied to Fatigue of Notched
Specimens,” Journal of Materials, Vol. 4, No. 1,
In light of the magnitude of the estimation errors shown March 1969, pp. 200-209.
here, any use of Neuber’s rule to approximate notch
strains should be looked upon critically by engineers 5
Boller, C. and Seeger, T., “Materials Data for Cyclic
concerned with model solution accuracy in a notched Loading, Part D: Aluminum and Titanium Alloys,”
region. In recent years, the proliferation of low-cost, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1987, pp. 87-89.
robust finite element tools has enabled engineers to
perform complex non-linear analyses on a wide variety 6
Roark, R.J. and Young, W.C., “Formulas for Stress
of structures with relative ease. These tools have and Strain, Fifth Ed.,” McGraw-Hill, New York,
largely eliminated the necessity of imposing Neuber’s 1975, p. 594.
rule to solve for notch strain behavior, except in the
cases of very complex problems, or where only a quick, 7
Dowling, N.E., Brose, W.R. and Wilson, W.K.,
rough estimate is needed. “Notched Member Fatigue Life Predictions by the
The early research efforts that validated the ability of Local Strain Approach,” Fatigue Under Complex
the strain-life methodology to predict fatigue cracks in Loading: Analyses and Experiments, edited by R.M.
areas of stress concentration made extensive use of Wetzel, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Neuber’s rule. In evaluating whether to eliminate the Warrendale, PA, 1977, pp. 55-84.
use of Neuber’s rule in the existing implementation of
8
the strain-life methodology, it must be considered that Bannantine, J.A., Comer, J.J. and Handrock, J.L.,
the conservatism of Neuber’s rule may be masking non- “Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis,” Prentice
conservatism in other simplifying assumptions of the Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990, pp. 140-
methodology. These effects will be evaluated in the 144.
future using a probabilistic strain-life methodology that
can examine Neuber error effects on predicted fatigue
life scatter, in light of the other simplifying assumptions
of the existing strain-life method, and accounting for
the scatter in all of the model variables that make up a
fatigue life calculation.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
60

50

Applied Load (Kips)


40

30

20

7050-T7451 FEM
10 7075-T651 FEM
7050-T7451 Neuber
7075-T651 Neuber
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
(a) (b) (c) Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in)

Figure 4. Notch Strain Calibration for 0.25 in. Dia.


Figure 1. Examples for Three Different Notch Notched Plate Edge
Geometries

60

100
90 50

80 Applied Load (Kips)


True Stress (Ksi)

40
70
60
30
50
40
20
30
7050-T7451 FEM
20 7050-T7451 Al 10 7075-T651 FEM
10 7075-T651 Al 7050-T7451 Neuber
7075-T651 Neuber
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.0 25 0.03
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in)
True Strain (in/in)
Figure 5. Notch Strain Calibration for 0.25 in. Dia.
Figure 2. Cyclic Stress-Strain Curves for Two Notched Plate Mid-Plane
Aircraft Aluminums
35
2000

1800 30
(psi)

Strain Percent Error (%)

1600 25
Notch Stress-Strain σε

1400
20
1200

1000 15

800 10
600
Neubers Rule
7050-T7451 Mid-Plane 5
400 7050-T7451 Mid-Plane
7075-T651 Mid-Plane 7075-T651 Mid-Plane
7050-T7451 Edge 0
200 7050-T7451 Edge
7075-T651 Edge 7050-T651 Edge
0 -5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.0 2 0 .025
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
2 Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in)
Applied Load (K t S) /E (psi)
Figure 6. Neuber Notch Strain Prediction Error for
Figure 3. Neuber’s Rule Correlation for 0.25 in. 0.25 in. Dia. Notched Plate
Dia. Notched Plate

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
45

40

35

Strain Error (%)


30

25

20

15

10

5 7050-T7451
7075-T651
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Figure 7. Geometry of Round Bar with Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in)
Circumferential Notch Figure 10. Neuber Notch Strain Prediction Error
for Circumferentially Notched Round Bar
2000
(psi)

1800
1600
σε

1400
Notch Stress-Strain

1200
1000
800
600
Neubers Rule
400
7050-T7451 FEM
200 7075-T651 FEM
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
2
Applied Load (KtS) /E (psi)
Figure 11. Finite Element Model of Double-Lap
Figure 8. Neuber’s Rule Correlation for Splice Joint (Symmetric)
Circumferentially Notched Round Bar

1800
12
(psi)

1600
σε

10 1400
1200
Applied Load (Kips)

Notch Stress-Strain

8
1000

6
800
600
4
Neubers Rule
400
7050-T7451 FEM
7050-T7451 FEM 200 7075-T651 FEM
2 7075-T651 FEM
7050-T7451 Neuber 0
7075-T651 Neuber 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
0 0.005 0.01 0 .015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 Applied Load (K t S) 2 /E (psi)
Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in)

Figure 9. Notch Strain Calibration for Figure 12. Neuber’s Rule Correlation for Double-
Circumferentially Notched Round Bar Lap Splice Joint

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
6 45

40
5
35
Applied Load (Kips)

30

Strain Error (%)


4
25

3 20

15
2
10

7050-T7451 FEM 5 Plate Edge


1 7075-T651 FEM Plate Mid-Plane
7050-T7451 Neuber 0 Circ umf. Notch
7050-T651 Neuber Lap Splice
0 -5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.0 2 0 .025
Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in) Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in)

Figure 13. Notch Strain Calibration for Double-Lap Figure 16. Neuber Notch Strain Prediction Error
Splice Joint for Several Geometries, 7075-T651 Al.

35

30

25
Strain Error (%)

20

15

10

0
7050-T7451
7075-T651
-5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in)

Figure 14. Neuber Notch Strain Prediction Error


for Double-Lap Splice Joint

45

40

35

30
Strain Error (%)

25

20

15

10

5 Plate Edge
Plate Mid-Plane
0 Circumf. Notch
Lap Splice
-5
0 0.005 0.01 0.0 15 0.02 0.025

Notch Surface Principal Strain (in/in)

Figure 15. Neuber Notch Strain Prediction Error


for Several Geometries, 7050-T7451 Al.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics