ISSN 0036-0295, Russian Metallurgy (Metally), Vol. 2019, No. 10, pp. 974–980. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2019.

Russian Text © The Author(s), 2019, published in Deformatsiya i Razrushenie Materialov, 2019, No. 6, pp. 2–9.

DEFORMATION AND FRACTURE

MECHANICS

Estimation of the Local State of Stress and Strains

in Stress Concentration Zones in a Wide Strain Range
N. A. Makhutova and D. O. Reznikova, *
a
Blagonravov Institute of Engineering Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 101990 Russia
*e-mail: mibsts@mail.ru
Received February 1, 2019; revised February 1, 2019; accepted February 15, 2019

Abstract—The specific features of various approximate analytical methods for estimating the state of stress in
the zone of stress concentration of stresses and strains, including the Neuber, Hardrath–Ohman, and Molski–
Glinka methods, are compared. A method for the modification of the methods to extend the range of the
strains under study up to fracture is proposed.

Keywords: stress concentration, strain concentration, local stresses, local strains, fracture
DOI: 10.1134/S0036029519100367

INTRODUCTION
The load-carrying units of machines and construc-
tions are characterized by nonuniaxial and nonuni-
form stress states, especially in the zones of structural
stress concentration (holes, notches, fillets, nipples,
carvings, sites of thickness changes and attachment of
reinforcing units, etc.) [1–4]. Since the fracture of
technical system units starts, as a rule, in the stress and
strain concentration zones, one of the main problems
is to correct the estimation of the local state of stress in
these zones. This estimation should be performed for
both normal loading conditions, which provide elastic
and low elastoplastic strains, and the emergency loads
at which developed plastic deformation can appear.
As a rule, an analysis of the state of stress in struc-
tural units in the stress concentration zones meets
considerable difficulties. Exact analytical solutions of
the edge nonlinear problems of the theory of stress
concentration are nearly lacking. Therefore, the
effects of the stress and strain redistribution in the
inelastic region in specimens and structural units are
studied by approximate analytical, numerical, and
experimental methods [4–7].
Approximate analytical methods for the estimation
of the state of stresses and strains in the concentration
zone establish relationships between the coefficients
of local stress and strain concentrations during elastic
and inelastic material deformation in the stress con-
centration zone. Among these methods are the Neu-
ber, Hardrath–Ohman, and Molski–Glinka meth-
ods, which allow a fairly precise estimation of the state
of stress in the concentration zone at restricted elasto-
plastic strains (εp ≤ 2.5%) [8–12]. In the case of the
emergency loading conditions resulting in the devel-
opment of high plastic strains (εp = 50–70%), which
can reach the values close to fracture strains εf, the
accuracy of the methods decreases appreciably. In this
case, basically more complex problems appear, when
the development of high plastic strains induces a change
in the geometric shapes, stress concentration zones,
and boundary conditions, which requires the use of the
equations of state written in true stresses and strains
rather than in engineering local stresses and strains.
In this article, we propose an approach to take into
account the dependence of the coefficients of stress
and strain concentrations on the level of nominal
stresses (they are equal to the ratio of the tensile load
to the minimum cross section) and on the elastoplas-
tic hardening. This makes it possible to estimate the
state of stress in a material in the structural stress
concentration zone over a wide strain range with a
fairly high accuracy.
APPROXIMATE METHODS
FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE STATE
OF STRESS AND STRAINS IN THE STRESS
CONCENTRATION ZONE
The appearance of elastoplastic strains in the stress
concentration zones induces the redistribution of
stresses and strains depending on the resistance of
materials to inelastic strains, the level of nominal
stresses, and a theoretical concentration coefficient.
The theoretical coefficient of stress concentration ασ
is used to relate the nominal stresses σn and strains εn
to the maximum local stresses σmax k and strains εmax k
in the stress concentration zone in the elastic region,
σmax k = ασσn at σmax k < σy , (1)
εmax k = ασεn at εmax k < ε y . (2)

974
 ESTIMATION OF THE LOCAL STATE OF STRESS AND STRAINS
Since the concentration zone as the entire element
considered exists in the elastic region, a linear rela-
tionship between the local stresses and strains (E is
Young’s modulus) takes place,
σmax k = E εmax k . (3)
As σn increases, ασ remains constant until the max-
imum stress in the concentrator zone reaches yield
stress σy. After this (at σmax k > σy), local stresses σmax k
and strains εmax k are not related by linear dependence (3),
and Eqs. (1) and (2) also cease to be fulfilled. Instead,
at σmax k > σy, the local stresses and strains are related
to the corresponding nominal values through the coef-
ficient of stress (Kσ) and strain (Kε) concentration
(Kσ ≠ Kε ≠ const),
σmax k = K σσn ,
εmax k = K εεn . (5)
Experimental data processing made it possible to
conclude that, beyond the elasticity range, the depen-
dence of the local strains on the local stresses can be
described by the Ramberg–Osgood equation, which
is presented by the sum of elastic εe and plastic εp
strains [14],
ε = εe + ε p = σ + σ ()
1m
, (6)
E K
where m is the constant of the material characterizing
its hardening in the elastoplastic region (0 ≤ m ≤ 1) and
is often taken to be equal to 0.3 and K is a material con-
stant (its physical meaning will be clarified further).
Equation (6) for the maximum stresses and strains
in the concentration zone takes the form
σmax k
( )
σ
1m
εmax k = + max k . (7)
E K
The inverse dependences of the stresses on the
strains are constructed separately: as a linear equation
for the elastic region and as a power dependence for
the plastic region,
σ = E ε at σ < σy ,
σ = σ y (ε ε y )m at σ > σy .
Assuming that εe ! εp, we obtain K = σy/εmy from
Eqs. (6) and (9).
For the stress concentration region, Eqs. (8) and (9)
take the form
σmax k = E εmax k at σmax k < σy ,
σmax k = σy (εmax k ε y )m at σmax k > σy . (11)
Similar equations can also be written for the nomi-
nal stresses,
σn = E εn at σn < σy ,
σn = σy (εn ε y )m at σn > σy .
RUSSIAN METALLURGY (METALLY) Vol. 2019
975
The relation between the coefficients of stress and
strain concentrations can be obtained from Eqs. (4),
(5), (10), and (11),
ε  σ
m
K σ = K εm  n  y at σmax k > σy . (14)
 ε y  σn
The concept of the field of fictitious elastic stresses
and strains Ae–f(σe–f, εe–f) is also used for the solution
of problems on the estimation of the state of stress in
the concentration region. Fictitious elastic stresses
and strains are calculated on the basis of the assump-
tion that the strains remain elastic after the local
stresses in the concentration zone reached the values
exceeding the yield stress (Fig. 1, line 1),
σe–f = ασσn , (15)
(4)
εe–f = ασεn . (16)
It is accepted that the nominal stresses and strains
remain elastic (according to Eqs. (15) and (16)).
A concept of the field of fictitious elastoplastic
stresses and strains Ap–f (M)
(σp–f, εp–f) is introduced sim-
ilarly in the case of extreme loading conditions and
developed plastic strains for the approximation of
stresses and strains in the concentration zone (see
Fig. 1, curve 2). Fictitious elastoplastic stresses and
strains Ap–f(M)
((σp–f, εp–f) are calculated under the
assumption that the simplest dependences of these
values on the stresses and strains in the stress concen-
tration zone (at σn > σy) are retained after the nominal
stresses and strains become plastic,
σ p–f = ασσn , ε p–f = ασεn . (17)
In this case, the relation between the nominal
stresses and strains in the plastic region is determined
by Eq. (13).
The accumulated experimental data [1–3] indicate
that the local elastoplastic strains in the concentration
zones result in the redistribution of the stresses and
strains, leading to a change in the coefficients of stress
and strain concentrations. The redistribution depends
(8) on the resistance of the material to inelastic strains
(yield stress, parameters of material hardening, theo-
(9) retical concentration coefficient ασ, the level of nom-
inal stresses σn). It is characteristic that the coefficient
of stress concentration (Kσ) decreases and the coeffi-
cient of strain concentration (Kε) increases with an
increase in loads (σn) (Fig. 2). In other words, after the
formation of the plastic zone near the concentrator,
(10) the maximum local stresses in the concentration
region turn out to be lower than the estimates of
stresses obtained from the assumption that the mate-
rial in the concentration zone continues to deform
elastically (σmax k < σe–f) and the maximum local
strains, on the contrary, exceed the estimates obtained
(12) on the basis of the elastic solutions (σmax k > σe–f).
Approximate analytical methods, which are based
(13) on the use of analytical or numerical solutions
No. 10
976 MAKHUTOV, REZNIKOV

σ
σextr
n
E∞
2

A(p–f
M)
(σ p–f , ε p–f )
σnorm
n
ΦM

Ae–f (σe–f, εe–f)

(M)
( ( M) ( M)
Amax k σmax k, εmax k ) P∞
( )
(N ) ( N) ( N) 3
Amax k σmax k, εmax k
ΦN
ΦM–G
ΦL
C
III

II
I

0 εT ε(L) ε(M – G) ε(N) ε = 5ε ε(M) ε(max

M) εf ε
max k max k max k lp y p–f k

Fig. 1. Determination of the local stresses and strains: (1) straight line of fictitious elastic states, (2) curve of fictitious elastoplastic
states, and (3) strain curve; I, II, and III are the ranges corresponding to the designed, normal, and extreme loads, respectively.

obtained in the elastic statement, are widely used
along with numerical and experimental methods.
These solutions make it possible to obtain the distribu-
tions of so-called fictitious (or pseudo) stresses σe–f
and strains εe–f in the concentration zone for the case
where a construction unit is elastically deformed at
any high loads.
ασ, Kσ, Kε
ασ
Kσ
1 analytical approach, we proposed a series of methods
0 1
Fig. 2. Coefficients of stress and strain concentrations vs.
the maximum stresses in the concentration zone.
All approximate analytical methods are based on
using two types of dependences. The first type is pre-
sented by the equations of state relating stresses and
strains at different deformation stages. Ramberg–
Osgood equation (6) can be used for the case of single
loading. Postulated dependences (hypotheses, rules of
recalculation or transformation) Φ, which determine a
relation between the fictitious elastic stresses and strains
(σe–f, εe–f) and the real elastoplastic response of the mate-
rial in the stress concentration zone (σmax k, εmax k), are
referred to the second type,
{σmax k , εmax k = Φ{σe–f , εe–f } at σe–f > σ y , εe–f > ε y .
In essence, transformation Φ maps the CE∞ half-
axis of fictitious elastic states onto the CP∞ segment of
Kε the strain curve (see Fig. 1),
Φ
Ae–f (σe–f , εe–f ) ⎯⎯⎯→ Amax k (σmax k , εmax k )
at σe–f > σy , εe–f > ε y .
In the framework of the described approximate
relating the maximum local stresses and strains in the
concentrator region to the fictitious stresses and
strains obtained from the elastic solutions. A similar
σmax k/σy relation between these quantities can be established
either directly or via concentration coefficients ασ, Kσ,
and Kε. Among these approaches are the linear ΦL

RUSSIAN METALLURGY (METALLY) Vol. 2019 No. 10

 ESTIMATION OF THE LOCAL STATE OF STRESS AND STRAINS 977

transformation (see Fig. 1), at which the maximum σ E∞

local strain ε(L)
max k is assumed to be equal to the strain
obtained in terms of the elastic solution σe–f; the Neu-
ber transformation ΦN [8] relating the coefficients of σe–f
A e–f
stress and strain concentrations in the elastoplastic
region and the theoretical coefficient of stress concen- ΦN 2 P∞
tration; the Hardrath–Ohman rule [15] relating the 1 (N )
Amax k
coefficient of stress concentration to the theoretical σmax k
coefficient of stress concentration and secant moduli
for deformation equal to the maximum strain in the
concentration zone and for the nominal strain; and
the Molski–Glinka transformation ΦM–G [16] relating C
3
the density of the strain energy in the vicinity of the
concentrator to the density of the strain energy at the
nominal values of stresses and strains. E
Among the listed analytical methods, the Neuber
method is most frequently used. This method makes it
possible to fairly precisely estimate the state of stresses
and strains in the stress concentration zone in the case
of restricted plasticity, i.e., at ασσn < σb ≈ 1.3σy. A 0 εe–f εmax k ε
number of modifications of Neuber’s rule was pro-
posed for higher loads and allowed one to estimate the Fig. 3. Geometric interpretation of Neuber’s hypothesis:
state of stress in the region of low, developed [17], and (1) straight line of fictitious elastic states, (2) strain dia-
also breaking [2] plastic strains. gram σ = f(ε), and (3) Neuber’s hyperbola (σmax kεmax k =
const).

NEUBER’S RULE
According to the hypothesis advanced by Neuber,
the product of the coefficients of stress Kσ and strain
Kε concentrations remains constant at any loading
level. Since both coefficients are equal to the theoreti-
cal coefficient of stress concentration ασ in the elastic
region, we can write [8]
K σK ε = ασ2 .
After evident transformations of Eqs. (1), (2), (4),
and (5), Neuber’s rule can be represented as follows:
Equation (22) specifies the ΦN transformation,
which map the Ae–f points of the CE∞ half-axis of fic-
(N )
titious elastic states to the Amax k points of the region of
the CP∞ strain curve (see Fig. 3). The position of the
(N)
Amax k point, which is an image of the Ae–f point on the
strain curve, is determined from the condition that the
(18)
surface areas of the OAe—fεe–f and OAmax
(N)
k εmaxk triangles
are the same.

σmax k εmax k = σe–f εe–f .
Equation (19) has the following simple geometric
interpretation: the surface areas of the triangles OAe—fεe–f
and OAmax kεmaxk are the same (Fig. 3). Taking into
account Eqs. (1) and (2), we can write Eq. (19) in
the form
σmax k εmax k = α2σσn εn .
Under the condition σn < σy, we obtain εn = σn/E.
From this, we have
σmax k εmax k = (ασσn )2 E .
At a given loading level, the right-hand side of
Eq. (21) is a constant value named Neuber’s constant
and Eq. (21) is the equation of hyperbola. Taking into
account Eq. (15), we can write Eq. (21) in the form
σ2e–f = E σmax k εmax k .
(19) Equation (21), which specifies Neuber’s rule,
should be used in combination with the Ranberg–
Osgood constitutive law of the type (6). This system of
two algebraic equations makes it possible to determine
the maximum stresses and strains in the concentration
region, σmax k and εmax k. Inserting the equation for
εmax k from Eq. (7) into Eq. (21), we have
(20)
σ2max k σ
( ) (ασσn )2 σ2e–f
1m
+ max k = = . (23)
E K E E
(21) Equation (23) can be solved numerically for εmax k.
Then, using Eq. (7), we determine the local elastoplas-
tic strains εmax k in the concentration region.
Equation (18) with allowance for Eq. (14) relating
the coefficients of stress and strain concentrations
(22) obtained for the power approximation of the strain

RUSSIAN METALLURGY (METALLY) Vol. 2019 No. 10

978 MAKHUTOV, REZNIKOV

diagram makes it possible to write the following equa- stress and strain redistribution during plastic defor-
tions for Kε and Kσ [1, 2]: mation,
(1− m) (1+ m)
2 (1+ m)  σn
 σmax k εmax k = σp–f ε p–f F (ασ, σn , σ(ε)).
K ε = ασ σ  at σn ≤ σm, (24)
 m
According to the experimental and calculated data
2 (1+ m)
K ε = ασ at σn ≤ σy , (25) [1, 2], function F should have the following properties:
(1− m) (1+ m)
F = 1 for the limiting elastic state where Kσ = Kε = ασ,
2m (1+ m)  σn  F decreases to certain minimum values corresponding
Kσ = ασ σ  at σn ≤ σy , (26) to the onset of plastic stability loss in the concentration
 y
zone with an increase in the elastoplastic strains, and
2m (1+ m)
K σ = ασ at σn ≤ σy . (27) function F increases with an increase in the plastic
strains after the strain stability was lost. The function
of the following form [1, 2] was proposed as a function
REFINEMENT satisfying these conditions:
OF NEUBER’S HYPOTHESIS
k (1− m)[1−(σn σy −1 σα )]
The approach proposed by Neuber for the estima-  σ 
tion of the state of stress in the concentration zones F (ασ, σn , σ(ε)) =  y  , (29)
during elastoplastic deformation is most popular in the  α σσn 
engineering calculation practice due to clearness and where k is the constant determined from the calcula-
simplicity. However, Neuber’s hypothesis works well tion or experiment for the given values of ασ and σn
only in the range of low elastoplastic strains (ε < εlp, (k can be accepted as 0.5) and m is the exponent of the
see Fig. 1, range II), while the accuracy of the esti- power approximation of the strain diagram.
mates obtained from Eq. (18) decreases at the level of
acting loads σσσn > σb ≈ 1.3σy. Therefore, a series of Function (29) can also be written in the form
modifications of Neuber’s rule was proposed. These
k (1− m)[1−(σn σm −σn σp–f )]
modifications allow one to estimate the state of stress  σy 
of an elastoplastic body in the concentration zone, F (ασ, σn , σ(ε)) =   .
including those under the conditions of considerable  σp–f 
plastic strains, at σn > σy (see Fig. 1, range III).
Taking this into account, Eq. (28) takes the form
As a result of analysis of the data of numerous
experimental studies, Makhutov [1, 2] introduced a k (1− m)[1−(σn σm −σn σp–f )]
 σm 
correction function into the Neuber equations taking K σK ε = ασ2 α σ  . (30)
into account the dependences of the concentration  σ n
coefficients on the level of nominal stresses and the
degree of elastoplastic hardening, Solving the system of Eqs. (30) and (14), we obtain

K σK ε = ασ2 F (ασ, σn , σ(ε)), (28) ασ

2 (1+ m)
(σn σm )
(1− m) (1+ m)

where F(ασ, σn, σ(ε)) is the function depending on the Kε = k (1− m)[1− (σ σy −1 ασ )] (1+ m)
,
theoretical coefficient of stress concentration ασ, level (ασσy σn ) n (31)
of acting stresses σn, and the character of material at σn ≤ σ y ,
hardening specified by the strain curve σ(ε).
2 (1+ m)
Equation (28) can be represented in the form of the ασ
ΦM transform depicting the curve of fictitious elasto- Kε = k (1− m)[1− (σ σm −1 ασ )] (1+ m)
,
plastic states (see Fig. 1, curve 2) on the plastic strain (ασσy σn ) n
(32)
diagram (see Fig. 1, curve 3) and characterizing the at σn ≥ σy ,

2m (1+ m)
ασ
Kσ = (1− m) (1+ m) k (1− m)[1− (σn σy −1 ασ )] (1+ m)
,
(σn σm ) (ασσy σn ) (33)
at σn ≤ σ y ,
2m (1+ m)
ασ
Kσ = k (1− m)[1− (σ σm −1 ασ )] (1+ m)
,
(ασσy σn ) n
(34)
at σn ≥ σ y .

RUSSIAN METALLURGY (METALLY) Vol. 2019 No. 10

 ESTIMATION OF THE LOCAL STATE OF STRESS AND STRAINS
F σn σy = 1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1 2 3 4 6 8
Fig. 4. Function F vs. parameter χ = ασσn/σy: (1) according to Neuber’s hypothesis, Eq. (23); (2, 3) according to Eq. (29).
Taking into account Eqs. (1), (2), (4), and (5),
Eq. (28) can be written in the form
σmax k εmax k
k (1− m)[1−(σn σy −σn σp–f )]
 σy 
= σp–f ε p–f   .
 σ p–f 
The proposed ΦM transformation maps the points of
the curve of the fictitious elastoplastic states Ap–f(σp–f, εp–f)
on the Amax k(σmax k, εmax k) points of the strain diagram
similarly to the ΦN transform (see Fig. 1). However,
the ΦM transform allows one to take into account the
coefficient of stress concentration ασ, the level of act-
ing strains σn, and the degree of material hardening m;
i.e., it makes it possible to describe the relation of the
fictitious elastoplastic stresses σp–f and strains εp–f to
the maximum local stresses σmax k and strains εmax k at
high σn within a single equation. It is also necessary to
mention that the solutions to the elastoplastic prob-
lems Ap–f(σp–f, εp–f) are used as the initial states in the
ΦM transformation. The σp–f stresses and εp–f strains are
determined from Eqs. (13) and (17), which are more real-
istic for the extreme loading conditions and developed
plastic strains than the elastic solutions Ae–f(σe–f, εe–f)
determined from Eqs. (12) and (16).
The dependence of the F function determined from
Eq. (29) on χ = ασσn/σy at k = 0.5 is presented in
Fig. 4. The points designate the experimental results
for 15Kh2MFA steel. Planar laboratory specimens,
which were prepared from 12Kh2MFA steel with the
cross section in the gage portion 24 × 6 mm and 55 ×
12 mm and notches of various profiles providing the
variation of the theoretical coefficients of stress con-
centration ασ in the range from 2.2 to 9.6, were used.
The stress–strain diagram of the steel was approxi-
mated by a power function with an exponent m = 0.08.
The nominal stresses in the cross sections with the
RUSSIAN METALLURGY (METALLY) Vol. 2019
979
m = 0; K σ = 1 1
2
K ε = ασ = 1 2
m = 0; k = 0; σn/σy = 1
3
σn/σy = 0.50–0.55
m = 0.08
10 20 30 40 60 χ
concentrator were in the range σn/σy = 0.5–0.55. It
can be noted that the experimentally determined val-
ues of the F function differ from F = 1 obtained by
Eq. (23) at all values χ = ασσn/σy > 1. For the material
(35) without hardening in the elastoplastic region (m = 0)
and under the conditions σn = σy and Kσ = 1, the coef-
ficient of strain concentration determined by Eq. (18)
is Kε = α2σ . According to Eqs. (28) and (29), we have
Kε = (0.8–1)α2σ at k = 0.5.
The dependences of the maximum logarithmic
strains in the concentration zone on the nominal
stresses σn for a specimen with the stress concentration
(ασ > 1) and a smooth specimen (ασ = 1) are shown in
Fig. 5. The following nonstandard cylindrical samples
of 08Kh18N10T steel were tested: smooth samples
with a diameter of 15 mm and samples with circular
notches 15 mm in diameter in the smooth part and
8.6 mm in diameter in the notch zone. The experi-
mental results are shown by symbols, and the data cal-
culated using Eqs. (31) and (32) are presented by
curves. The enhancement of the resistance to elasto-
plastic strains by 8–18% due to the bulky stressed state
in the weakened cross section was taken into account in
the calculations. It follows from the presented results
that Eqs. (31) and (32) satisfactorily describe the exper-
imental data at the nominal stresses both lower (see
Fig. 5, ranges I and II) and higher (see Fig. 5, range III)
than the yield stress up to σn = (2–2.8)σy.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed approach makes it possible to fairly
exactly describe the experimental data in the region of
low elastoplastic strains and in the region of developed
plastic strains, which allows this approach to be used
for the estimation of the strength and safety of
No. 10
980 MAKHUTOV, REZNIKOV
σn, MPa
800
700 III
II
600
I
500
400
300
200
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Fig. 5. Strains in the concentration zones vs. nominal stresses.
machines and constructions under extreme loads. The
obtained solutions become especially important with
allowance for the fact that, in the recent time, the cal-
culation and substantiation of the strength, service
life, and safety are performed more frequently in the
general nonlinear statement on going from the force
fracture criteria expressed via the extreme local
stresses σmax k to the strain-based criteria written in the
extreme local strains εmax k.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for
Basic Research, project no. 16-58-48008 IND_omi.
REFERENCES
1. N. A. Makhutov, Strain Fracture Criteria and Calcula-
tion of the Structural Units to Strength (Mashinostroenie,
Moscow, 1981).
2. N. A. Makhutov, M. M. Gadenin, V. V. Moskvichev,
et al., Local Criteria of Strength, Service Life, and Ro-
bustness of Aeronautical Constructions (Nauka, Novosi-
birsk, 2017).
3. J. A. Bannantine, J. J. Comer, and J. L. Handrock,
Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis (Prentice Hall,
1990).
4. S. S. Manson and G. R. Halford, Fatigue and Durability
of Structural Materials (ASM International, 2006).
5. A. Ince, “Numerical validation of computational stress
and strain analysis model for notched components sub-
jected to non-proportional loadings”, Theor. Appl.
Fract. Mech. 84, 26–37 (2016).
6. A. Ince and G. Glinka, “A numerical method for elas-
to-plastic notch-root stress–strain analysis,” J. Strain
Anal. 48 (4), 229–244 (2013).
RUSSIAN METALLURGY (METALLY)
1.0
1.5
2.5
ασ = 5.1
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 εmax k
7. Y.-L. Lee, M. E. Barkey, and K. Hong-Tae, Metal Fa-
tigue Analysis Handbook (Butterworth-Heinemann,
2012).
8. H. Neuber, “Theory of stress concentration for shear-
strained prismatic bodies with arbitrary nonlinear
stress–strain law,” J. Appl. Mech. 28 (4), 544–550
(1961).
9. A. Ince and D. Bang, “Deviatoric Neuber method for
stress and strain analysis at notches under multiaxial
loadings,” Int. J. Fatig. 102, 229–240 (2017).
10. D. Ye, S. Matsuoka, N. Suzuki, and Y. Maeda, “Fur-
ther investigation of Neuber’s rule and the equivalent
strain energy density (ESED) method,” Int. J. Fatig.
26, 447–455 (2004).
11. R. Adibi-Asl and R. Seshadri, “Unified approach for
notch stress strain conversion rules,” J. Pres. Ves.
Technol. 135 (4), 041203 (1–9) (2013).
12. T. Li, J. Zheng, and Z. Chen, Description of Full-Range
Strain Hardening Behavior of Steels (Springer Plus,
2016), Vol. 5.
13. G. Härkegård and T. Mann, “Neuber prediction of
elastoplastic strain concentration in notched tensile
specimens under large-scale yielding,” J. Strain Anal.
Eng. Design 38, 79–94 (2003).
14. W. Ramberg and W. Osgood, Description of Stress–
Strain Curves by Three Parameters: NASA Technical
Note N 902 (NASA’s STI Facility, Washington, 1943).
15. P. Klesnil and P. Lukas, Fatigue of Metallic Materials
(Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992), Vol. 71.
16. K. Molski and G. Glinka, “A method of elastoplastic
stress and strain calculation at a notch root,” Mater.
Sci. Eng. 50, 93–100 (1981).
17. T. Seeger and P. Heuler, “Generalized application of
Neuber’s rule,” J. Test. Eval. 8, 199–204 (1980).
Translated by E. Yablonskaya
Vol. 2019 No. 10