International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Distributions of the elastic principal stress due to notches in finite

size plates and rounded bars uniaxially loaded
S. Filippi a, P. Lazzarin b,∗
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Padova, Via Venezia 1, 35131 Padova, Italy
b
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Stradella S. Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy

Received 16 January 2003; received in revised form 10 June 2003; accepted 28 July 2003

Abstract

The paper presents approximate expressions suitable for describing the elastic distribution of the maximum principal stress in
plates and round bars subjected to uniaxial loads. The closed form expressions are valid over the entire ligament width and represent
an extension of an analytical frame recently reported in the literature and valid only for the highly stressed zone surrounding the
notch tip. Such an extension is obtained by simply imposing global equilibrium conditions, both to notched plates and axi-symmetric
rounded bars. Existing analogies between the stress distributions induced by elliptic, slim parabolic and V-shaped notches are
discussed on the basis of theoretical and numerical evidence. Finally, the accuracy of the new expressions has been examined
against finite element results showing a good agreement.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Elasticity; Stress distribution; U-notch; V-notch; Elliptic notch; Circular notch; Finite size

1. Introduction (LEFM) and other methods mainly suggested to deal

The knowledge of linear elastic stress fields in the
close neighbourhood of cracks and crack-like notches is
essential to assess the high cycle fatigue strength of
structural components. This holds true also for notched
components characterised by not particularly severe
stress concentrations, for example when one uses the
maximum principal stress in conjunction with some criti-
cal distance methods, typically the Point Method and the
Line Method [1–3]. The former method is based on the
value of the maximum principal stress at a given distance
from the notch tip, the latter method is based on the
value of the principal stress averaged on a line departing
from the notch tip. Distance and line length are 0.5a0 and
2a0, respectively, where a0 is the well known material
parameter due to El-Haddad et al. [4]. Under high cycle
fatigue conditions, the Critical Distance Mechanics cre-
ates an ideal bridging between conventional Kt-based
notch analyses, Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
∗
Corresponding author. Fax: +39-0444-998888.
E-mail address: plazzarin@gest.unipd.it (P. Lazzarin).
with sharp notches and crack-like notches [5–7].
As it is well known, an exact analytical solution of
the stress distributions exists only in a limited number
of cases. The analyses made by Airy [8], Kirsh [9] and
Inglis [10] regarding circular and elliptical holes, rep-
resent the main contributions in the case of notches in
an infinite plate. Other formulations reported later by
Howland [11], Knight [12] and Ling [13] make it poss-
ible to calculate exact stress fields in finite size strips
weakened by analogous geometrical notches. But these
formulations are no longer used and today it is common
practice to use numerical methods to analyse the local
stress perturbations in notched components, indepen-
dently of the complexity of the geometries analysed. On
the other hand, numerical methods lead to a typical
sparse data output which is much less manageable than
analytical results and, moreover, make uneasy to under-
stand the role played by all geometrical parameters
involved. These features justify the search for approxi-
mate analytical solutions that can be easily used for pre-
dicting stress distributions in the most common notches
[14–27].

0142-1123/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2003.06.001
378 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

Among these solutions, the best known is Creager–
Paris’ formulation [15], which in the common practice
can be utilised not only for “blunt cracks” but also for
describing local stress fields in parabolic, elliptic, U and
narrow V-shaped notches, in particular when the elastic
peak stress is localised at the notch tip. This is because
stress distributions in the close neighbourhood of the tip
radius r mainly depend on the notch tip radius and only
“slightly” depend on the global geometry of the notch
[22]. Otherwise, in the presence of mixed-load con-
ditions, Creager–Paris’ solution should be applied only
to slim parabolic notches, as highlighted by Radaj and
Sonsino [28].
In the past several researchers suggested different for-
mulas for the local stress fields often combining an ana-
lytical frame and a best fitting of numerical data.
Approximate equations valid for notches with high
values of Kt were developed by Weiss [14] on the basis
of Neuber’s solution [29], subsequently also modified by
Chen [16]. In the case of low values of Kt, Usami [17]
presented an extension of Airy’s expressions, while
Kujawski [19] was the first to re-arrange the Creager–
Paris formulation by introducing a correction factor f,
this factor being dependent on the value of the theoreti-
cal stress concentration factor Kt.
Glinka [30] strongly contributed to the diffusion of
Creager–Paris’ formulas for Mode I loading, by giving
a proper definition of the generalised stress intensity fac-
tor for “blunt cracks” (K⬘I = smax√pr / 2) and by using
it to formalise the Equivalent Strain Energy density cri-
terion. Subsequently, Glinka and Newport [18] sug-
gested two polynomial expressions, different for blunt
and sharp notches, in order to promote their adoption in
engineering calculations. They also suggested a correc-
tion useful for bending problems. Most of these formu-
lations were carefully checked by Shin et al. [20] and
Shin [21] on the basis of numerical analyses, with the
aim to clarify their accuracy and range of validity. More
recently, Kujawski and Shin [24] combined two previous
The aim of the present work is to present some new
formulas suitable for describing the maximum principal
stress distribution along the entire ligament of plates or
rounded bars weakened by central or symmetric lateral
notches. The starting point is a recent analytical frame
[27] proposed to describe the local stress distributions
in the close neighbourhood of V-shaped notches with
varying opening angles.
The expression of the maximum principal stress along
the notch bisector is modified in order to take into
account the global equilibrium condition. The stress field
predictions over the whole ligament width are obtained
only on the basis of analytical conditions, avoiding best
fitting operations of numerical data. One only needs to
know the transverse net section of specimens and the
relevant Kt value.
A check of stress distributions due to V-notches and
those induced by elliptic (semi-elliptic), circular (semi-
circular) and U-notches will allow us to define an equiv-
alent V-notch, and to extend the method also to compo-
nents weakened by notches of different types.
2. Some analytical preliminaries
A set of closed form equations valid for V-shaped
notches in plates subjected to Modes I or II loads has
been recently reported in the literature [27] improving
the accuracy of previous solutions [23,26]. The new
equations have been obtained by using Kolosoff-Mush-
kelishvili’s complex potential function approach [32]
and the conform mapping on a semi-infinite plane due
to Neuber [29].
With reference to the polar coordinate system shown
in Fig. 1, Mode I stress fields in the vicinity of the notch
tip are [27]:

冦冧 冤冦 冧
solutions due to Chen [16] and Kujawski [19] into a sq (1 ⫹ l1)cos(1⫺l1)q
unique formulation able to yield a better approximation
for notches having a very different degree of acuity. sr ⫽ l 1r l1⫺1
a1 (3⫺l1)cos(1⫺l1)q
Worthy of attention are also the formulas for the trq (1⫺l1)sin(1⫺l1)q
maximum principal stress due to Xu et al. [22], who
were able to give compact expressions for the maximum

冦 冧
principal stress by combining theoretical results valid for cos(1 ⫹ l1)q
a half-plane bounded by a semi-infinite parabola [31]
and features of the stress fields in finite size components ⫹ cb1(1⫺l1) ⫺cos(1 ⫹ l1)q (1)
under Mode I loading. Xu et al. [22] adopted the stress sin(1 ⫹ l1)q
concentration factor Kt and the root radius r as the main
parameters for infinite bodies, and then introduced the

冢冦 冧
notch depth to ligament width ratio as an additional para- (1 ⫹ m1)cos(1⫺m1)q
meter suitable for analysing the finite size effect. The
influence of the different parameters on the maximum
principal stress distribution was determined by a best fit-
⫹
q r
4(q⫺1) r0 冉冊 m1⫺l1
cd1 (3⫺m1)cos(1⫺m1)q
(1⫺m1)sin(1⫺m1)q
ting of finite element data.
 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391 379

is worth noting that the distance r0 between the origin

of the coordinate system and the notch tip depends on
the angle 2a and on the tip radius r according to the
expression
r(q⫺1)
r0 ⫽ (2)
q
being q = (2p⫺2a) / p. In the case of a slim parabolic
notch, we have 2a = 0, q = 2 so that the distance between
the notch tip and the origin of the coordinate system is
r 0 = r / 2, according to Creager–Paris’ formulation [15].
Finally, the parameter a1 in Eq. (1) can be given as a
function of the peak stress value, so that [27]
a1 ⫽ (3)
smax
l1rl01⫺1{(1 ⫹ l1) ⫹ cb1(1⫺l1) ⫹ [(1 ⫹ m1)cd1 ⫹ cc1](q / 4(q⫺1))}

When the notch tip radius is equal to zero, Eq. (1)

matches Willams’s solution [33] when 2a ⫽ 0 and Wes-
Fig. 1. Coordinate system and symbols used for the stress field tergard’s solution [34] when 2a = 0 (the crack case). In
components. both cases, the constant a1 can be correlated to the gener-
alised or conventional stress intensity factor.

冦 冧冣冥
cos(1 ⫹ m1)q 3. Principal stress distribution in finite size plates
⫹ cc1 ⫺cos(1 ⫹ m1)q and bars
sin(1 ⫹ m1)q
In the present work, only the tensile stress sq|q = 0 =
sy along the notch bisector (Fig. 1) is considered because
where coefficient l1 is Williams’ eigenvalue valid for this is the most important stress component in fatigue
sharp V-notches [33], while m1 is an additional exponent, analysis. The stress field can be simplified as follows:
essential to describe the stress field in the vicinity of the
blunt notch tip. In Eq. (1) cb1, cd1 and cc1 are linearly
dependent terms, whose expressions were derived by sy ⫽
smax
4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1
4(q⫺1)冋r
r0 冉冊 l1⫺1
(4)

冉冊 册
applying the local boundary conditions on the notch free
m1⫺1
edge [27]. Table 1 summarises the values of all para- r
⫹ qw1
meters for different values of the opening angle 2a. It r0

Table 1
Parameters for the stress distributions given by Eqs. (1) and (7)

2a (degrees) q l1 m1 cb1 c c1 cd1 w1

0 2.00 0.500 ⫺0.500 1.00 4.00 0.00 2.00

30 1.833 0.501 ⫺0.456 1.071 3.791 0.063 1.879
45 1.750 0.505 ⫺0.432 1.166 3.752 0.083 1.738
60 1.667 0.512 ⫺0.406 1.312 3.283 0.096 1.552
75 1.583 0.525 ⫺0.377 1.528 2.926 0.103 1.329
90 1.500 0.544 ⫺0.345 1.841 2.506 0.105 1.080
120 1.333 0.616 ⫺0.268 3.003 1.515 0.087 0.57
135 1.25 0.674 ⫺0.22 4.153 0.993 0.067 0.345
150 1.167 0.752 ⫺0.162 6.362 0.614 0.041 0.165
26a 1.856 0.501 ⫺0.462 1.053 3.837 0.057 1.909
46a 1.744 0.505 ⫺0.430 1.174 3.555 0.084 1.717
70a 1.611 0.520 ⫺0.387 1.447 3.053 0.102 1.407

a
Values of the opening angle used for elliptic and circular notches.
380 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

where
cd1(1 ⫹ m1) ⫹ cc1
w1 ⫽ (5)
1 ⫹ l1 ⫹ cb1(1⫺l1)
(see Table 1). Eq. (4) has been found to be in satisfactory
agreement with finite element results in the high stress
region around the notch tip [27], while, due to its nature,
it cannot be used in the zones far away from the notch
tip, where the influence of the nominal stress becomes
predominant.
In order to improve the accuracy of the maximum
principal stress distribution along the entire ligament
width, we introduce here the auxiliary function f(r)
defined as
f(r) ⫽ r0 ⫹ { arc tan[(r⫺r0)m] } / m (6) Fig. 3. Influence of m on the theoretical stress distributions.
and suggest substituting the radial distance r in the first
term between square brackets of Eq. (4) with f(r). Conse-
quently therefore stress distributions provided by relations (4)

再 再
and (7) are practically coincident in the vicinity of the
smax
sy ⫽ 4(q⫺1) 1 (7) notch tip.
4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1 As shown in Fig. 2, Eq. (6) also exhibits a strong

⫹
arc tan[(r⫺r0)m]
r0m 冎 l1⫺1
⫹ qw1 冉冊 冎
r
r0
m1⫺1 dependence on the m variable:
limm→0+r0 ⫹ { arctan[(r⫺r0)m] } / m ⫽ r (9)
Figs. 2 and 3 show the influence of the parameter m on limm→⬁r0 ⫹ { arctan[(r⫺r0)m] } / m ⫽ r0 (10)
Eqs. (6) and (7). It is essential to note that Eqs. (4) and
Generally speaking, relation (6) shows an asymptotic
(7) are equivalent at the tip, since
behaviour as r tends to infinity and m is different from
∂f(r) ∂2f(r) zero; as a consequence Eq. (7) tends towards a finite
f(r)|r=r0 ⫽ r0
∂r | r=r0
⫽1
∂r2 | r=r0
⫽0 (8) value as the distance from the notch tip increases. In
particular
A proper evaluation of the parameter m will allow us to
describe the stress distribution along the entire weakened
section of the components.
limr→⬁sy ⫽
smax
4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1
4(q⫺1) 1 ⫹
p
2r0m 冉 冊l1⫺1

Eq. (8) shows that Eq. (6) coincides with the function (11)
distance r in r0, as well as its first and second derivative;
Therefore a rapid evaluation of the m parameter for infi-
nite bodies can be achieved by simply imposing

sn om ⫽
smax
4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1
4(q⫺1) 1 ⫹
p
2r0m 冉 冊l1⫺1
(12)

so that

冋冉 冊 冉 冊 册
1/(l1⫺1) 1/(l1⫺1) ⫺1
p 1 qw1
minf ⫽ 1⫹ ⫺1
2r0 Kt 4(q⫺1)
(13)
In the previous formulation, Eq. (6) was introduced only
in the terms linked to exponent l1, while the expression
including m1 was left unmodified. As noted above, m1-
related terms are meaningful only in the close neigh-
bourhood of the tip, thus they are not expected to give
substantial contribution to the representation of the finite
dimension effect. A more complex formulation with
Fig. 2. Influence of the parameter m. respect to Eq. (6) would be necessary only if Kt values
 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391 381

are very low. Note that when m tends to infinite Eq. (12) The right-hand term of Eq. (18) can directly be determ-
leads to ined, while a trial value for the parameter m can be
qw1 obtained by introducing Kt net in Eq. (13).
Kt min ⫽ 1 ⫹ (14) Condition (16) is fully analytical and does not require
4(q⫺1)
best fitting techniques. Moreover the global error aver-
Then, the value of Kt min ranges from 2 to 1.3 when the aged along the entire ligament width
opening angle 2a ranges from 0° to 150°. However,
numerical evidence demonstrated that in the case of
blunt notches (typically circular and semi-circular
notches, see later), it is convenient to substitute Eq. (6)
⌬tot ⫽ 冕 h/2

0
[sy, exact(x)⫺sy, predicted(x)] dx (19)

with Eq. (15), which also satisfies Eqs. (8)–(10). is evidently null. Thus, it can be expected that the final
description of sy given by Eqs. (7) and (17) is in satis-
f(r) ⫽ r0 ⫹ {tanh[(r⫺r0)m] } / m (15)
factory agreement with the exact stress distribution not
When r tends to infinity, the function “tanh” tends to 1.0 only in the highly stressed zone but over the entire net
while “arctang” tended to p / 2. Consequently, Eq. (15) section of the component.
is able to describe a more rapid transition between the
stress concentration zone and the nominal stress zone. 3.2. Finite size axi-symmetric bars
The results of numerical analyses on blunt notches sup-
ported this choice. In axi-symmetric components, the global equilibrium
3.1. Finite width plates condition (16) becomes:
In the previous paragraph, a simple correction was
suggested for infinite bodies. In that case, a proper defi-
nition of the m parameter can be achieved by taking
sn om, net ⫽
4
pd2 冕d/2

0
sy(R)2pR dR (20)

advantage of the equivalence between the remote applied where d is the diameter of the net section and R is the
stress and the limiting value expressed in Eq. (11). On distance from the longitudinal axis, correlated to the dis-
the other hand, the correction for finite width elements tance r of the previous local coordinate system by the
can be obtained by involving global equilibrium con- expression
ditions. d
The longitudinal tensile distribution needs to satisfy R⫽ ⫹ r0⫺r (21)
the following condition: 2

sn om, net ⫽
2
冕 h/2 By using Eqs. (7) and (21), Eq. (20) becomes:

冕 再 再
sy(x) dx (16)
h 0 8 r0 ⫹ d / 2
R
smax 4(q⫺1) 1
where h is the net width of the plate and x is the distance d2 r0 4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1

冎 冉冊 冎
from the notch tip. Taking advantage of Eq. (7), Eq.
l1⫺1 m1⫺1
(16) becomes: arc tan[(r⫺r0)m] r
⫹ ⫹ qw1
冕 再 再
dr (22)
2 r0 ⫹ h / 2
smax r0m r0
4(q⫺1) 1
h r0 4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1 ⫽ sn om, net

⫹
arc tan[(r⫺r0)m]
r0m 冎 l1⫺1
⫹ qw1 冉冊 冎
r
r0
m1⫺1
dr (17)
A more convenient form of Eq. (22), to be used in
numeric calculations, is:

⫽ sn om, net
Eq. (17) does not have an analytical solution and the
冕 再
r0 ⫹ d / 2

r0
1⫹
arc tan[(r⫺r0)m]
r0m 冎
l1⫺1
R dr

evaluation of the parameter m needs a numeric routine. sn om, net d2 4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1
In order to make calculations easier, we re-write Eq. (17) ⫽ (23)
smax 8 4(q⫺1)
in the following form

冕 再 r0 ⫹ h / 2

r0
1⫹
arc tan[(r⫺r0)m]
r0m 冎 l1⫺1
dr ⫹
qw1
4(1 ⫹ m1)(q⫺1) 冋
(r0 ⫹ d / 2)m1+1
rm0 1⫺1
⫺r20 册
⫽
sn om, net h 4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1
smax 2 4(q⫺1)
(18) ⫺
qw1
8m1(q⫺1)
(d ⫹ 2r0)
rm0 1⫺1 冋
(r0 ⫹ d / 2)m1
⫺r0 册
⫺
qw1r0
4m1(q⫺1) 冋冉 1⫹
h
2r0冊 册m1
⫺1 Eq. (23) can be solved by a numeric routine, to obtain
the optimal m parameter.
382 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

Once the maximum principal stress distribution in the
entire weakened section is known, it might be of interest
to estimate the hoop stress distribution due to the axial
symmetry.
In a cylindrical coordinate system, the following
expressions are valid:
It is obvious that the accuracy of the sqq distribution
strictly depends on the degree of correctness of the sx
and sy distributions.
4. Elliptic and U-shaped notches

sRR ⫽
E duR
1⫺n2 dR冉⫹n
uR
R
⫹ sLL
n
冊
1⫺n
(24) The extension of the frame given by Eq. (1) to cases

冉 冊
where the opening angle is not clearly defined (as it hap-
E uR duR n pens, for example, in elliptic and semi-elliptic notches)
sqq ⫽ ⫹n ⫹ sLL (25)
1⫺n2 R dR 1⫺n or the notch depth tends to the root radius value (as in
where now sLL, sRR and sqq are the longitudinal, radial an semi-circular notch), it is possible but it needs some
and hoop stress components, respectively, while uR is additional information.
the radial displacement, E is the Young modulus and n The aim of the following part is just to extend the
is the Poisson ratio. formulation valid for V-shaped notches to other type of
Even if the two coordinate systems are different, in notches, providing the useful data in order to decrease
the errors to document the degree of accuracy. In parti-
the weakest transversal section of the bar, the sRR stress
component coincides with sr|q = 0 = sx, while sLL cular, the following notches will be explicitly con-
coincides with sy. Therefore, by introducing Eq. (7) and sidered:
the radial stress distribution given by Eq. (1) into Eq.
(24), the displacement uR can be related to known para- – elliptic notches centred in a plate and symmetric semi-
meters: elliptic notches;

冉冊
– circular notches centred in a plate and symmetric
l1⫺1
r semi-circular notches;
sr|q=0 ⫽ sx ⫽ smax (26)
r0 – U-shaped notches, both lateral and central (two

冉冊
notches linked in such a way to define a buttonhole)

冦 冧
q r m1⫺l1
3⫺l1⫺cb1(1⫺l1) ⫹ [cd1(3⫺m1)⫺cc1]
4(q⫺1) r0 A first analysis, useful for elliptic defects, can be made
q on the basis of the exact solution developed by Inglis
1 ⫹ l1 ⫹ cb1(1⫺l1) ⫹ [c (1 ⫹ m1) ⫹ cc1]
4(q⫺1) d1 [3]. Limiting the comparison to the close neighbourhood
of the tip, we shall use as an accuracy index the para-

⫽ 冉
E duR
⫹n
uR
⫹ 冊
smax meter ⌬, defined as follows
4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1
冕 冤 |
2
1⫺n2 dR
| 冥
R 1 0.4r

再 再 冎 冉冊 冎
l1⫺1 m1⫺1
⌬⫽ sbb ⫺sq dr (28)
arc tan[(r⫺r0)m] r n 0.4r
4(q⫺1) 1 ⫹ ⫹ qw1 0
a=a(r) a=a(r)
r0m r0 1⫺n b=0 b=0

Finally, by substituting Eq. (21) into (26), a non-linear
differential equation is derived. It can be easily solved
by using some commercial codes.
It is worth noting that the homogeneous solution of
Eq. (26) can be formulated in the general form K·R⫺n,
K being a constant. This term is singular at the axis
(R = 0), so that K is equal to zero and only the particular
solution has to be taken into account.
Once uR is numerically determined, Eq. (25) can be
used to predict the distribution of the hoop stress compo-
nents sqq:
where the distance 0.4r delimitates the zone where stress
distribution depends only on the notch radius [7]. In Eq.
(28), sbb is the normal stress calculated by means of
Inglis’ formulas for Mode I loading (b = 0 in the elliptic
auxiliary coordinate system), while sq is the stress
component of an “equivalent” V-notch, given by the first
expression of Eq. (1), and evaluated along the notch
bisector. For different elliptic notches, Fig. 4 shows the
dependence of Eq. (28) on the equivalent opening angle.
By interpolating the numerical data shown in Fig. 4,
it is possible to derive the following interpolating law

冉 冊
where the angle 2aeq is in degrees:
E uR duR

冉 冊
sqq ⫽ ⫹n ⫺0.916
1⫺n2 R dR a
2aeq ⫽ 192.64 1 ⫹ 2 (29)

再 再
b
smax 4n(q⫺1)
⫹ 1 (27)
4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1 1⫺n Note that in the case of a circular hole, 2aeq is about

冎 冉冊 冎
equal to 70°. Eq. (29) can be justified also on the basis
l1⫺1 m1⫺1
arc tan[(r⫺r0)m] nqw1 r of some other theoretical considerations related to the
⫹ ⫹
r0m 1⫺n r0 free edge effects.
 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391 383

a ⫽ c cosh(a0) b ⫽ c sinh(a0) (31)

c being a constant and b the angular coordinate (Fig. 5).
The sv stress component along the real notch edge can
also be derived from Eq. (1) by applying the Cauchy the-
orem:

冦冧 冦冧
sv sr
su ⫽ [T] sq (32)
tuv trq

where the matrix T is

冤 冥
cos2g sin2g 2singcosg
Fig. 4. Normalised index ⌬ versus the angle 2aeq of a V-notch equiv- [T] ⫽ sin2g cos2g ⫺2singcosg (33)
alent to an elliptic notch in a infinite plate.
⫺singcosg singcosg cos2g⫺sin2g

In an ellipse, at the neighbourhood of the tip, the non- and the angle g is shown in Fig. 5.
zero sv stress component along the free edge (see Fig. Polar coordinates can be linked to the elliptic coordi-
5) can be described on the basis of Inglis’ relation: nates as follows:
sinh(2a0) ⫹ e2a0 cos(2b)⫺1 r(b) ⫽ (34a)
sv ⫽ sbb|a=a0 ⫽ (30)
c冑sinh(a0)2sin(b)2 ⫹ (cosh(a0)cos(b)⫺a / c ⫹ r0 / c)2
cosh(2a0)⫺cos(2b)

冉 冊
where a0 is a characteristic parameter in the elliptic
coordinates, which is related to the ellipse semi-axes a sinh(a0)sin(b)
q(b) ⫽ arc tan (34b)
and b by means of: cosh(a0)cos(b)⫺a / c ⫹ r0 / c

g(b) ⫽ p⫺arc tan 冉 sinh(a0)cos(b)

cosh(a0)sin(b) 冊
⫺q(b) (34c)

Finally
sv(b) ⫽ sr[r(b),q(b)]cos2[g(b)]
⫹ sq[r(b),q(b)]sin2[g(b)] (35)
⫹ 2trqsin[g(b)]cos[g(b)]

Fig. 5. Local stress indexes for Neuber’ hyperbola (u, v)and Inglis’ Fig. 6. Angle 2aeq versus the major axis/minor axis ratio; notch in a
ellipse (a, b). infinite plate.
Table 2 384
Geometry of the notches on finite size plates and parameters of the stress distributions

Model no. Type of notch Notch depth a Tip radius r (mm) Ligament width h Kt gross Kt net 2aeq (deg) a1 (MPa mm1⫺l1) m (mm⫺1)
(opening angle) (mm) (mm) (∗) (∗)

1 Elliptic 5 0.3125 20 9.80 6.53 26 18.04 0.55

2 Elliptic 5 0.3125 225 9.01 8.63 26 16.59 0.58
3 Elliptic 5 1.25 20 5.55 3.70 46 19.18 0.40
4 Elliptic 5 1.25 225 5.01 4.80 46 17.31 0.54
5 Circular 5 5 20 3.48 2.32 70 21.33 0.10
6 Circular 5 5 40 3.15 2.52 70 19.31 0.26
7 Circular 5 5 160 3.01 2.84 70 18.45 0.33
8 Semi-elliptic 5 0.3125 20 9.61 6.41 26 17.69 0.60
9 Semi-elliptic 5 0.3125 225 9.61 9.20 26 17.69 0.50
10 Semi-elliptic 5 1.25 20 5.21 3.48 46 18.00 0.56
11 Semi-elliptic 5 1.25 225 5.22 4.99 46 18.04 0.48
12 Semi-circular 5 5 20 3.06 2.04 70 18.75 0.41
13 Semi-circular 5 5 40 3.04 2.43 70 18.63 0.32
14 Semi-circular 5 5 160 3.06 2.88 70 18.75 0.31
15 Lateral U 5 2.5 40 3.96 3.17 30 20.34 0.31
16 Lateral U 10 2.5 20 5.58 2.79 30 28.65 0.32
17 Lateral U 10 2.5 40 5.33 3.56 30 27.37 0.24
18 Lateral U 10 1.25 40 7.26 4.84 30 26.39 0.24
19 Lateral U 10 0.5 40 11.12 7.41 30 25.60 0.26
20 Lateral U 10 0.5 80 11.32 9.05 30 26.06 0.22
21 Central U 40 5 165 7.40 4.98 45 50.94 0.06
22 Central U 15 5 165 4.91 4.15 45 33.81 0.12
23 Central U 5 2.5 40 4.01 3.21 45 19.59 0.31
24 Lateral V (45°) 5 2.5 40 3.96 2.64 – 19.35 0.33
25 Lateral V (45°) 10 2.5 40 5.33 3.55 – 26.04 0.25
26 Lateral V (45°) 10 1.25 40 7.25 4.83 – 25.14 0.26
27 Lateral V (45°) 10 0.5 40 11.09 7.40 – 24.43 0.27
28 Lateral V (90°) 5 2.5 40 3.94 2.63 – 15.44 0.29
29 Lateral V (90°) 10 2.5 40 5.27 3.51 – 20.65 0.22
30 Lateral V (90°) 10 1.25 40 7.08 4.72 – 20.23 0.22
31 Lateral V (90°) 10 0.5 40 10.61 7.07 – 19.97 0.22
S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

32 Lateral V (135°) 5 2.5 20 3.57 2.38 – 9.75 0.24

33 Lateral V (135°) 10 2.5 20 4.83 2.42 – 13.19 0.24
34 Lateral V (135°) 10 2.5 40 4.50 3.00 – 12.29 0.11
35 Lateral V (135°) 10 2.5 80 4.58 3.66 – 12.5 0.07
36 Lateral V (135°) 10 0.5 20 8.10 4.05 – 13.08 0.21
37 Lateral V (135°) 10 0.5 40 7.57 5.04 – 12.22 0.11
38 Lateral V (135°) 10 0.5 80 7.70 6.16 – 12.43 0.07
39 Diamond (90°) 15 5 165 4.66 3.95 – 25.04 0.12
40 Diamond (90°) 5 2.5 40 4.06 2.70 15.89 0.25

(∗) a1, m referred to a remotely applied nominal stress equal to 10 MPa.

Table 3
Geometry of the notches on axi-symmetric models and parameters of the stress distributions

Model no. Type of notch (opening Notch depth a Tip radius r (mm) Inner diameter d (mm) Kt gross Kt net aeq (deg) a1 (MPa mm1⫺l1) m (mm⫺1)
angle) (mm) (∗) (∗)

41 Semi-circular 5 5 20 4.03 1.79 70 24.7 0.44

42 Semi-circular 5 5 80 3.25 2.56 70 19.92 0.26
43 Semi-circular 0.5 0.5 80 3.10 3.02 70 6.29 3.02
44 Lateral U 10 2.5 20 9.44 2.36 30 48.48 0.29
45 Lateral U 10 2.5 40 6.99 3.11 30 35.89 0.17
46 Lateral U 10 1.25 40 9.51 4.22 30 34.57 0.18
47 Lateral U 10 0.5 40 14.59 6.48 30 33.58 0.19
48 Lateral U 10 0.5 80 12.64 8.09 30 29.1 0.19
49 Lateral V (45°) 10 2.5 40 6.99 3.10 – 34.16 0.19
50 Lateral V (45°) 10 1.25 40 9.51 4.23 – 32.97 0.2
51 Lateral V (45°) 10 0.5 40 14.56 6.47 – 32.08 0.21
52 Lateral V (90°) 10 2.5 40 6.90 3.07 27.03 0.18
53 Lateral V (90°) 10 1.25 40 9.27 4.12 – 26.49 0.17
54 Lateral V (90°) 10 0.5 40 13.85 6.16 – 26.07 0.18
55 Lateral V (135°) 10 2.5 20 8.50 2.13 – 23.21 0.25
56 Lateral V (135°) 10 2.5 40 5.96 2.65 – 16.27 0.10
57 Lateral V (135°) 10 2.5 80 5.07 3.25 – 13.84 0.06
58 Lateral V (135°) 10 0.5 20 14.16 3.54 – 22.86 0.18
59 Lateral V (135°) 10 0.5 40 10.01 4.45 – 16.16 0.08
60 Lateral V (135°) 10 0.5 80 8.52 5.45 – 13.76 0.06
S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

(∗) a1, m referred to a remotely applied nominal stress equal to 10 MPa.

385
386 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

Now, the “equivalence” between ellipse and V-notch can
be discussed on the basis of an analytical condition:
since the peak value is already coincident and the first
derivative is clearly null, the second derivative of the sv
stress component becomes the parameter of interest.
More precisely, the following equation has to be solved
∂2sv ∂2sv(sr,sq,trq)
∂b2 | a=a0
⫽
∂b2 |
a=a0
(36)
b=0 b=0
where the term on the left-hand side is evaluated by Eq.
(30) and the right-hand term is derived by Eq. (35).
Fig. 6 shows the roots of Eq. (36) as a function of the
major axis to minor axis ratio a/b. The plot differs from
that related to the minimum scatter provided by Eq. (28).
More precisely, the disagreement increases as b tends to
a, while, on the contrary, the data substantially coincide
for high a/b ratios. In both cases, the opening angle 2aeq
of an “equivalent” V-notch tends, as expected, asymp-
totically towards zero as a/b increases. This result con-
firms the possibility to adopt the Creager–Paris solution
also for elliptic notches when Kt is sufficiently high. The
disagreement between the two criteria plotted in Fig. 6
can be clarified by observing that, in general, the con-
dition of equilibrium on the free edge involves not only
the sv component, but also the su and tuv stresses [27].
In the U-notch case, because an exact solution does
not exist, the equivalence with V-notches can be dis-
cussed only on the basis of FE results. Taking into
account finite size components, a comparison between a
number of finite element analyses and theoretical trends
provided by Eq. (1) showed that the best agreement is
achieved by imposing 2aeq = 30° for lateral U-notches
and 2aeq = 45° for double U central notches. The results
will be documented in the next paragraph.
The observed equivalency between U and narrow V-
notches can be justified also on the basis of the stress
concentration factor Kt which, as well known, is seen to
be not dependent on the notch opening angle when the
angle is close to zero [35]. Distinct opening angles 2aeq
are suggested for lateral and internal U-notchs in order
to correctly reproduce the slightly different slopes of
their stress distributions.
5. Estimations of stress concentration factors
The formulas previously reported establish the shape
of the stress distribution and require only the maximum
peak stress to derive parameter m by simply using an
equilibrium condition. It is worth noting that, by fixing
all parameters present in Eq. (7) on the basis of the notch
type and geometry, parameter m exhibits a weak varia-
bility also in the presence of great variations of the notch
tip radius (and then of the stress concentration factor).
Therefore, it is possible to determine the value m∗ for
a given value of the notch tip radius r∗, and sub-
sequently, to introduce the m∗ parameter in Eq. (16) in
order to calculate the peak stress for different values of
r. The convenient expressions for plates and bars are

Table 4
Error d% for elliptic (semi-elliptic) and circular (semi-circular) notches, with reference to different formulations

d%
Model no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

r⫺r0 = 0.1r a
⫺1.1 ⫺1.0 ⫺2.1 ⫺1.8 ⫺4.3 ⫺3.3 ⫺3.1 ⫺0.6 ⫺0.6 ⫺1.1 ⫺1.2 ⫺1.6 ⫺2.1 ⫺2.3
b
0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 ⫺1.5 ⫺1.0 ⫺0.2 0.9 0.4 1.1 0.6 1.3 0.2 0.8
c
4.4 4.5 3.5 3.7 ⫺1.3 2.3 2.6 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.3 4.2 3.5 3.2
Eq. (4) ⫺0.1 0.1 ⫺0.1 0.7 ⫺1.3 ⫺0.3 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.5 0.9 0.7
r⫺r0 = 0.3r a
⫺2.8 ⫺2.5 ⫺4.9 ⫺4.3 ⫺9.0 ⫺6.6 ⫺5.9 ⫺1.5 ⫺1.5 ⫺2.5 ⫺2.9 ⫺2.6 ⫺4.1 ⫺4.4
b
0.5 ⫺0.2 ⫺0.3 ⫺0.4 ⫺2.5 ⫺1.7 ⫺1.7 1.7 0.5 2.1 0.9 2.2 1.2 2.9
c
4.9 5.1 2.4 3.2 ⫺2.1 0.3 0.9 6 6.1 4.6 4.5 3.6 2.6 2.6
Eq. (4) ⫺0.2 ⫺0.1 ⫺0.8 ⫺0.3 ⫺3.1 ⫺0.8 ⫺0.7 1.0 0.9 1.6 1.2 3.1 1.7 1.3
r⫺r0 = 0.7r a
⫺4.4 ⫺4.0 ⫺6.4 ⫺5.2 d d d
⫺2.3 ⫺2.4 ⫺2.6 ⫺3.5 d d d

b
0.2 ⫺0.7 0.4 0.2 d d d
2.2 0.5 2.9 1.8 d d d

c
1.2 2.1 ⫺2.7 ⫺0.6 d d d
3.1 3.7 0.6 1.2 d d d

Eq. (4) ⫺0.7 ⫺0.4 ⫺0.7 ⫺0.3 d d d

1.3 1.1 2.9 2.1 d d d

r⫺r0 = r a
⫺4.7 ⫺4.2 ⫺5.2 ⫺3.9 d d d
⫺2.4 ⫺2.5 ⫺1.2 ⫺2.4 d d d

b
0.4 ⫺0.7 ⫺3.2 1.8 d d d
2.6 0.7 ⫺0.9 3.3 d d d

c
⫺1.2 0.1 ⫺4.9 ⫺2.0 d d d
1.0 1.9 ⫺1.8 ⫺0.3 d d d

Eq. (4) ⫺0.61 ⫺0.3 0.8 1.2 d d d

1.6 1.4 ⫺4.6 3.4 d d d

a
Refs. [15,30].
b
Ref. [22].
c
Ref. [24].
d
Nominal stress zone.
 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391 387

smax ⫽ (37)
h 4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1
sn om, net
2 4(q⫺1)
qw1r0
4m1(q⫺1)
1⫹
h
2r0 冋冉 冊 册 冕 再
m1
⫺1 ⫹
r0 ⫹ h / 2

r0
1⫹
arc tan[(r⫺r0)m∗]
m∗r0 冎
l1⫺1
dr

smax ⫽ (38)
4(q⫺1) ⫹ qw1
sn om, net d2
4qw1
8(q⫺1)
qw1
⫹ 冕 再
r ⫹ d/2

r
0
0
1⫹
arc tan[(r⫺r0)m∗]
m ∗r 0 冎 冉
l ⫺1
1 d
2
⫹ r0⫺r dr ⫹冊dr0 ⫹ 2r20
m1(1 ⫹ m1) 冋冉 1⫹
d
2r0 冊 册
m
1
⫺1 ⫺
m1 dr0
(1 ⫹ m1)

where r and r0 are linked by means of Eq. (2).

Expressions (37) and (38) make it possible to link smax
and r for plane and axi-symmetric elements.

6. Validation of the proposed equations

This paragraph summarises the results of a compari-

son carried out between finite element analyses and pro-
posed predictions. In particular, the plane problem was
analysed by means of 40 models (Table 2), where h/r
and Kt net ranged from 2 to 720 and from 2.04 to 9.20,
respectively. In parallel, 20 axi-symmetric models were
studied (Table 3), with d/r ranging from 4 to 160 and
Kt net from 1.79 to 8.09. Parameters a1 and m in Eqs. (1)
and (7) are also reported in Tables 2 and 3, the former
referring to a particular value of the remote applied stress
(sn om = 10 MPa). All numerical analyses were perfor-
med by using the Ansys code, choosing isoparametric
parabolic elements and taking advantage of the double
symmetry in order to create very fine meshes ahead of
the notch tip.
The first results regard the highly stressed zone of Fig. 7. A comparison between numerical and analytical results along
elliptic (semi-elliptic) and circular (semi-circular) the notch bisector of circular and semi-circular notches (a) and U-
shaped notches (b).
notches. The accuracy of the estimates is quantified by
mean the following index:
syFEM⫺sy predicted The sy stress component was calculated by means of
d% ⫽ 100 (39)
syFEM relation (6) when Kt gross was greater than 4.5 and by
means of Eq. (15) when it was less than 4.5. It is worth
Table 4 gives d% at different distances from the notch noting that in all cases (also in models with low Kt, see
tip and makes a direct comparison between Eq. (7) and models 5–7, 12–15, 23–24, 28, 32 and 40), the errors
other formulations [15,22,24] possible. The agreement are very low not only in the vicinity of the notch tip,
between the numeric and the V-equivalent results is seen but also at large distances from it. The accuracy of the
to be very good and aligned with the most recent new expressions is shown also by the plots given in Figs.
expressions. The accuracy of the analytical expression 8–11.
is also shown in Fig. 7a–b, where it is evident that along With regard to the maximum values of the sqq stress
the notch bisector an improvement of stress predictions component, Table 7 summarises predicted and exact
is obtained with 2a different from zero. In particular Fig. stress concentration factors Kt, qq, where Kt, qq is the ratio
7b shows that the variation with respect to the Creager– between the peak value of the hoop stress and the nomi-
Paris solution (2a = 0 in Eq. (1)) is quite small but nal longitudinal stress. Table 7 also gives the error in
clearly visible. percentage given by the expression:
A more extensive check is summarised in Tables 5
and 6 where the index d% is calculated at very different sqq(FEM)⫺sqq(predicted)
dqq% ⫽ (40)
distances from the notch tip. sqq(FEM)
388 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

Table 5 Table 6
Error index for the plane models of Table 2 Error index for the axi-symmetric models of Table 3

Model d% Model d%
no. no.

r⫺r0= r⫺r0= r⫺r0= r⫺r0= r⫺r0= r⫺r0= r⫺r0= r⫺r0= r⫺r0= r⫺r0=
0.1r 0.3r r 3r 10r 0.1r 0.3r r 3r 10r

1 ⫺0.1 ⫺0.2 ⫺0.9 ⫺1.4 3.6 41 2.3 2.6 ⫺3.4

2 ⫺0.1 ⫺0.1 ⫺0.6 ⫺1.6 2.8 42 0.8 1.1 0.1 ⫺0.1
3 ⫺0.1 ⫺0.9 ⫺1.2 ⫺3.0 43 0.6 ⫺0.3 ⫺1.7 ⫺2.6 ⫺0.3
4 ⫺0.7 ⫺0.4 ⫺1.9 ⫺1.6 ⫺0.9 44 ⫺1.0 ⫺0.7 0.2 ⫺0.2
5 ⫺1.3 ⫺3.2 2.7 45 ⫺0.3 1.1 2.3 ⫺1.2
6 ⫺0.3 ⫺1.5 0.0 0.8 46 ⫺0.6 0.9 3.2 0.4 ⫺5.4
7 ⫺0.7 ⫺1.7 ⫺3.7 ⫺1.3 1.1 47 ⫺0.0 2.5 3.1 ⫺1.4 4.5
8 0.6 1.0 1.3 2.7 0.4 48 ⫺0.8 0.3 3.2 2.9 ⫺1.7
9 0.6 ⫺0.9 ⫺1.2 2.7 2.3 49 ⫺1.8 ⫺1.9 0.8 0.8 ⫺1.6
10 0.9 1.4 1.1 ⫺0.8 50 ⫺1.4 ⫺0.7 1.1 ⫺0.2 ⫺0.7
11 0.8 ⫺1.1 0.7 ⫺0.8 ⫺2.1 51 ⫺1.2 ⫺0.7 0.5 0.0
12 1.4 1.6 ⫺1.6 52 ⫺2.9 ⫺3.3 ⫺0.9 ⫺1.0
13 0.9 0.8 ⫺0.4 0.2 53 ⫺2.9 ⫺3.3 ⫺0.4 ⫺0.7 ⫺3.6
14 0.7 0.4 ⫺1.3 ⫺2.0 0.6 54 ⫺3.0 ⫺3.5 ⫺0.4 0.1 ⫺2.4
15 ⫺0.3 ⫺1.4 ⫺1.3 0.3 55 ⫺3.1 ⫺2.1 0.1 8.1
16 1.2 1.8 0.5 ⫺1.4 56 ⫺2.7 ⫺1.2 0.7 0.2
17 0.8 1.0 0.4 ⫺0.6 57 ⫺2.6 ⫺0.7 2.2 2.1 ⫺2.6
18 1.0 1.0 ⫺0.0 0.8 ⫺1.0 58 ⫺2.6 ⫺0.9 1.3 0.7 ⫺1.1
19 1.4 1.9 0.4 1.4 1.5 59 ⫺2.6 ⫺0.8 1.7 1.8 ⫺0.1
20 1.4 1.9 0.3 1.4 3.4 60 ⫺2.6 ⫺0.7 1.9 2.5 1.5
21 1.1 0.8 ⫺0.8 ⫺0.9
22 1.6 1.5 ⫺0.5 ⫺0.1 ⫺0.6
23 ⫺0.6 ⫺2.4 ⫺1.8 2.2
24 0.4 ⫺0.3 ⫺0.3 ⫺0.1
25 1.9 2.4 ⫺0.2 0.0 1.0
26 2.6 3.1 0.3 ⫺1.5
27 2.9 3.3 0.6 ⫺0.2 ⫺1.5
28 2.2 2.3 1.1 ⫺0.1
29 3.1 3.7 0.8 0.0 0.0
30 2.9 2.1 0.2 ⫺1.4
31 2.7 1.4 ⫺0.7 ⫺0.8
32 2.5 1.0 ⫺1.2 0.0
33 2.6 1.1 ⫺1.7 ⫺1.5 0.2
34 2.7 1.5 ⫺0.7 ⫺0.3 ⫺0.4
35 2.7 1.3 ⫺1.2 ⫺1.3 ⫺0.5
36 2.7 1.3 ⫺1.4 ⫺1.9 ⫺1.5
37 ⫺1.6 ⫺4.7 ⫺5.8 3.3
38 1.2 0.2 ⫺3.5 ⫺0.3 2.6
39 2.1 1.8 ⫺1.2 ⫺1.3 1.1
40 1.6 1.0 ⫺0.1 2.7

Results in Table 7 confirm the satisfactory degree of

accuracy given by Eq. (27). Fig. 12 shows the distri-
bution over the entire net section.
Finally, Tables 8 and 9 show predictions for Kt, net
based on Eqs. (37) and (38) taking into account U-
shaped notches on plates and bars; the m∗ index was
evaluated on the basis of the data related to the models
with r/h or r / d = 0.1. The “exact” values were taken
from Peterson’s handbook [35] when Kt was less than
3.0, while for greater Kt they were determined numeri-
cally.
The results obtained demonstrate that Eqs. (37) and
(38) are a useful tool in the presence of large variations
Fig. 8. A comparison between numerical and analytical results along
the bisector of some V-notches.
of geometry. Note that cases below the dotted lines rep-
resent geometries where the notch edge is defined only
by a part of a circular arc. The accuracy is promising,
considering that Peterson’s handbook [35] often does not
provide adequate support for bodies characterised by
high Kt values, which have to be investigated by numeri-
cal methods.
 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391 389

Table 7
Exact and predicted peak values for the hoop stress sqq; the error in
percentage, d%, is referred to finite element values

Model no. Kt gross Kt qq FEM Kt qq Eq. (27) dqq% Eq.

(27)

41 4.03 0.93 0.98 ⫺5.2

42 3.25 0.75 0.90 ⫺20.2
43 3.10 0.64 0.76 ⫺18.2
44 9.44 2.74 2.78 ⫺1.7
45 6.99 2.03 2.18 ⫺7.5
46 9.51 2.86 3.04 ⫺6.2
47 14.59 4.46 4.67 ⫺4.7
48 12.64 3.73 3.97 ⫺6.5
49 6.99 2.03 2.15 ⫺5.9
50 9.51 2.86 3.00 ⫺4.9
51 14.56 4.45 4.61 ⫺3.7
Fig. 9. A comparison between numerical and analytical results along
52 6.90 1.97 1.99 ⫺1.3
the bisector of some V-notches.
53 9.27 2.74 2.78 ⫺1.4
54 13.85 4.17 4.23 ⫺1.4
55 8.50 2.05 1.97 3.7
56 5.96 1.52 1.51 0.9
57 5.07 1.31 1.34 ⫺2.8
58 14.16 3.85 3.83 0.7
59 10.01 2.78 2.80 ⫺0.6
60 8.52 2.36 2.43 ⫺3.2

Fig. 10. A comparison between numerical and analytical results

along the bisector of some U-notches.

Fig. 12. A comparison between numerical and theoretical results

related to the hoop stress component (Model no. 49).

7. Conclusions

Taking advantage of a recent formulation suitable for

describing stress distributions in the vicinity of V–notch
tips, the paper presents some equations that permit the
maximum principal stress estimation along the entire
ligament width of the notched section. Plane and axi-
symmetric components of finite size are considered, all
weakened by central and lateral symmetric notches of
different geometry.
Fig. 11. A comparison between numerical and analytical results
along the bisector of some circular or semi-circular notches. The method is fully analytical and does not require
additional coefficients based on a best fitting of numeri-
390 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391

Table 8
Values of Kt net for plates with symmetric lateral U-notches

r/h H / h = 1.1 H/ h = 1.2 H /h = 1.5 H/h = 2

FE data Eq. (37) FE data Eq. (37) FE data Eq. (37) FE data Eq. (37)

0.0125 4.84 4.46 6.01 6.22 7.41 7.65 8.08 8.18

0.03125 3.31 3.11 4.01 4.09 4.84 4.92 5.22 5.24
0.0625 2.77 2.47 3.02 3.06 3.55 3.58 3.79 3.79
0.10 2.16 2.16 2.55 2.55 2.92 2.92 3.07 3.07
0.12 2.04 2.06 2.37 2.39 2.71 2.71 2.84 2.84
0.14 1.97 1.98 2.24 2.26 2.54 2.54 2.67 2.66
0.16 1.90 1.91 2.14 2.16 2.40 2.41 2.51 2.52
0.18 1.84 1.86 2.07 2.08 2.29 2.30 2.40 2.40
0.20 1.80 1.81 2.00 2.01 2.20 2.21 2.29 2.30
0.22 1.76 1.77 1.94 1.95 2.13 2.14 2.21 2.22
0.24 1.72 1.74 1.89 1.90 2.07 2.07 2.13 2.15
0.26 1.68 1.71 1.85 1.86 2.01 2.01 2.07 2.08
0.28 1.65 1.68 1.80 1.81 1.96 1.96 2.02 2.03
0.30 1.62 1.65 1.76 1.78 1.92 1.92 1.96 1.98

Table 9
Values of Kt net for rounded bars with a U-notch

r/d D / d = 1.1 D/ d = 1.2 D / d = 1.5 D/d = 2

FE data Eq. (38) FE data Eq. (38) FE data Eq. (38) FE data Eq. (38)

0.0125 4.63 4.36 5.59 5.80 6.48 6.65 6.72 6.94

0.03125 3.17 2.99 3.71 3.79 4.23 4.29 4.35 4.47
0.0625 2.68 2.34 2.79 2.82 3.11 3.14 3.16 3.26
0.10 2.02 2.02 2.34 2.34 2.57 2.57 2.66 2.66
0.12 1.91 1.92 2.16 2.19 2.38 2.39 2.47 2.47
0.14 1.83 1.84 2.03 2.07 2.23 2.25 2.31 2.32
0.16 1.77 1.77 1.94 1.98 2.11 2.14 2.19 2.20
0.18 1.71 1.72 1.87 1.90 2.02 2.05 2.09 2.11
0.20 1.67 1.67 1.81 1.84 1.94 1.97 2.00 2.03
0.22 1.63 1.64 1.76 1.78 1.88 1.91 1.93 1.96
0.24 1.60 1.60 1.70 1.74 1.83 1.85 1.87 1.90
0.26 1.58 1.57 1.67 1.70 1.78 1.80 1.81 1.85
0.28 1.55 1.55 1.64 1.66 1.74 1.76 1.76 1.80
0.30 1.53 1.52 1.61 1.63 1.70 1.72 1.73 1.76

cal data, but only a simple condition of global equilib-
rium. An extensive comparison between the theoretical
distribution of the maximum principal stress and numeri-
cal data was made, taking into account 60 different notch
models. The agreement was found to be very satisfac-
tory.
In the axi-symmetric cases, a formulation capable of
estimating the hoop stress over the net section was
presented. The derived non–linear equation system
requires a numerical routine to be solved.
The extension of equations to elliptic, circular and U-
shaped notches has been discussed in detail, on the basis
of some analytical and numerical findings. The concept
of equivalent V-notch was introduced with the aim to
reduce the error of the analytical estimation when the
notch opening angle is not clearly identified.
Finally, as the formulas developed succeed in quan-
tifying the finite size effect, a simple method was
presented, able to estimate the variations of the stress
concentration factors in components having the same net
and gross sections, weakened by the same type of notch
but in the presence of a notch tip radius largely variable.
References
[1] Taylor D. Geometrical effects in fatigue: a unifying theoretical
model. Int J Fatigue 1999;21:413–20.
[2] Taylor D, Wang G. The validation of some methods of notch
fatigue analysis. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct
2000;23:384–7.
[3] Taylor D, Barrett N, Lucano G. Some new recent methods for
predicting fatigue in welded joints. Int J Fatigue 2002;24:509–18.
[4] El Haddad MH, Topper TH, Smith KN. Prediction of non-propa-
gating cracks. Engng Fract Mech 1979;11:573–84.
 S. Filippi, P. Lazzarin / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 377–391
[5] Tanaka K. Engineering formulae for fatigue strength reduction
due to crack-like notches. Int J Fract 1983;22:R39–45.
[6] Atzori B, Lazzarin P, Tovo R. Stress field parameters to predict
the fatigue strength of notched components. J Strain Anal
1999;34:437–53.
[7] Atzori B, Lazzarin P, Filippi S. Cracks and notches, analogies
and differences of the relevant stress distributions and practical
consequences in fatigue limit predictions. Int J Fatigue
2001;23:355–62.
[8] Airy GB. Britannic association of advanced science report. 1862.
[9] Kirsh G. Die Theorie der Elastizität und die Bedürfnisse der Fes-
tigkeitslehre. V.D.I. 1898;42:797–807.
[10] Inglis CE. Stress in a plate due to the presence of cracks and
sharp corners. Trans R Inst Naval Architects 1913;60:219–41.
[11] Howland RJ. On the stresses in the neighbourhood of a circular
hole in a strip under a tension. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 1929;Series
A229:49–86.
[12] Knight RC. Action of a rivet in a plate of finite breadth. Phil
Magazine 1935;19(Series 7):517–40.
[13] Ling CB. Stresses in a notched strip under tension. J Appl Mech
1947;14:A275–A80.
[14] Weiss V. Trans ASME 1962, Paper no. 62-WA-270.
[15] Creager M, Paris PC. Elastic field equations for blunt cracks with
reference to stress corrosion cracking. Int J Fract Mech
1967;3:247–52.
[16] Chen C. Collection of papers on fracture of metals. Beijing: Met-
allurgy Industry Press; 1978. p. 197–219.
[17] Usami S. Short crack fatigue properties and component life esti-
mation. In: Tanaka T, Jono M, Komai K, editors. Current research
on fatigue cracks. Kyoto, Japan: The Society of Materials
Science; 1985. p. 101–25.
[18] Glinka G, Newport A. Universal features of elastic notch-tip
stress fields. Int J Fatigue 1987;9:143–50.
[19] Kujawski D. Estimations of stress intensity factors for small
cracks at notches. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct
1991;14:953–65.
[20] Shin CS, Man KC, Wang CM. A practical method to estimate
the stress concentration of notches. Int J Fatigue 1994;16:242–55.
391
[21] Shin CS. Fatigue crack growth from stress concentrations and
fatigue life predictions in notched components. In: An. Carpinteri,
editor. Handbook of fatigue crack propagation in metallic struc-
tures. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, BV; 1984. p.
613–52.
[22] Xu RX, Thompson JC, Topper TH. Practical stress expressions
for stress concentration regions. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct
1995;22:885–95.
[23] Lazzarin P, Tovo R. A unified approach to the evaluation of linear
elastic stress field in the neighbourhood of cracks and notches.
Int J Fract 1996;78:3–19.
[24] Kujawski D, Shin CS. On the elastic longitudinal stress esti-
mation in the neighborhood of notches. Engng Fract Mech
1997;56:137–8.
[25] Atzori B, Lazzarin P, Tovo R. Stress distribution for V-shaped
notches under tensile and bending loading. Fatigue Fract Engng
Mater Struct 1997;20:1083–92.
[26] Lazzarin P, Tovo R, Filippi S. Stress distributions in finite size
plates with edge notches. Int J Fract 1998;91:249–62.
[27] Filippi S, Lazzarin P, Tovo R. Developments of some explicit
formulas useful to describe elastic stress field ahead of the
notches. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39:4543–65.
[28] Radaj D, Sonsino CM. Fatigue assessment of welded joints by
local approaches. Abington, Cambridge: Abington Publishing;
1998.
[29] Neuber H. Theory of notch stress. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1958.
[30] Glinka G. Calculation of inelastic notch-tip strain-stress histories
under cyclic loading. Engng Fract Mech 1985;22:839–54.
[31] Thompson JC. On the asymptotic character of the stress near
notches in plane problems. Strain 1976;(October):151–5.
[32] Mushkelishvili NI. Some basic problems of the mathematical
theory of elasticity. Noordhoff Leyden; 1953.
[33] Williams ML. Stress singularities resulting from various bound-
ary conditions in angular corners of plates in extension. J Appl
Mech 1952;19:526–8.
[34] Westergaard HM. Bearing pressures and cracks. J Appl Mech
1939;6:A49–53.
[35] Pilkey WD. Peterson’s stress concentration factors. New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1997.