Issue 38

M. A. Meggiolaro et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 38 (2016) 128-134; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.38.17 129 To calculate elastoplastic (EP) strains from a given multiaxial stress history, it is usually necessary to adopt an incremental plasticity formulation, which integrates non-linear differential equations to obtain the stress-strain behavior [1]. In the presence of notches, a much simpler approach is to perform a single linear elastic (LE) Finite Element (FE) calculation on the entire piece for a static unit value of each applied loading. The resulting values at the notch root are called pseudo- stresses and pseudo-strains, which are fictitious quantities calculated using the theory of elasticity at the critical point of the piece, while assuming that the material follows Hooke’s law [2]. These pseudo values are represented here with a “~” symbol on top of each variable. Under in-phase proportional loadings, approximate models to obtain the stress and the strain concentration factors K   and K   can be used to avoid computationally-intensive incremental plasticity calculations. They provide notch corrections that try to correlate pseudo and notch-tip values using a scalar parameter such as the Mises equivalent stress. The main EP notch models for in-phase proportional histories are the constant ratio [3], Hoffmann-Seeger's [4-5], and Dowling's [6] models. These models require some variable definitions, namely:  i   and i   : pseudo principal stresses and strains at the notch tip, where i  1, 2, 3.   i and  i : actual elastoplastic principal stresses and strains at the notch tip.   2 and  3 : biaxiality ratios between the principal stresses,  2  2 /  1 and  3  3 /  1 , both assumed between  1 and 1 .    2 and  3 : biaxiality ratios between principal strains, where  2  2 /  1 and  3  3 /  1 , also assumed between  1 and 1 ; and   : effective Poisson ratio, with 0.5     in the EP case, where  is the (LE) Poisson ratio. Dowling’s model [6] assumes that the principal stresses  1 and  2 act on the free surface of the critical point (thus  3  0 ), but it considers that both  2 and  2 are constant, estimating them from the pseudo-stresses and pseudo-strains: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 , 1 1                                 (1) The model then directly correlates  1 and  1 using effective Ramberg-Osgood parameters E* and Hc*: h c c E H 1 1 1 1 * *            (2) h c c c h c E E H H ( 1)/2 2 2 2 2 * * 2 2 1 (1 ) , 1 (1 / 2)                       (3) In notched components, assuming that the principal directions of the EP stresses and pseudo-stresses are equal, a reasonable supposition, then a variation of Neuber’s rule [7] could be used to calculate the EP notch-tip  1 (and then  1 ) from the pseudo 1   : h c c E E H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * * *                                          (Dowling) (4) The above equation does not require a plastic term on the left hand side, because the pseudo-stresses and pseudo-strains are, by definition, LE. Finally, the other notch-tip EP principal stresses and strains are then obtained from  1 and  1 : E 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 * 1 2 , 0 1 , 0.5 ( 0.5 ) , 1                                (5)