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

A numerical investigation has been undertaken to
quantify the potential error in the use of Neuber’s rule
in approximating stresses and strains for local stress
concentration regions that undergo plastic deformation.
A flat plate with an open hole, a round bar with a
circumferential notch and a double-lap splice joint with
three rows of pins were all modeled using finite
element techniques, for two different material types.
The local notch stress and strain values from the models
were each compared to the notch strain values predicted
using Neuber’s rule. The results show that Neuber’s
approximation significantly overpredicts local strain
when plasticity (0.8% to 2.0% strain) is encountered in
the notch. The state of multiaxial stress in the notch
region significantly affects the Neuber strain prediction
error, but not in a consistent manner. Different material
stress-strain curves also have an effect on the strain
prediction error, but to a lesser extent. The results
indicate that using finite element solutions in the place
of Neuber’s rule to estimate notch strain behavior may
significantly reduce the modeling error (epistemic
uncertainty) of a probabilistic strain-life methodology.
NOMENCLATURE
E - Young’s modulus
Et - strain hardening modulus
Kf - fatigue notch factor
Kt - elastic stress concentration factor
Kε - local strain concentration factor
Kσ - local stress concentration factor
n - strain hardening exponent
S - nominal stress
Sy - stress at proportional limit
*
Aerospace Engineer, Senior Member.
†
Aerospace Engineer, Member.
This paper is a declared work of the U.S. Government
and is not subject to copyright protection in the United
States.
S70E - stress at 0.70E intersection
∆S - nominal cyclic stress amplitude
∆ε - local cyclic strain amplitude
∆σ - local cyclic stress amplitude
ε - local strain
ε2 - strain at linear plastic hardening
ν - Poisson’s ratio
σ - local stress
INTRODUCTION
Shipboard operations of naval aircraft demand that
structural integrity management ensure safety and
readiness through a safe life concept. The underpinning
of the Naval Air Systems Command’s (NAVAIR) safe
life methodology is the strain-life1 approach to
predicting the initiation of fatigue cracks under cyclic
loading. Strain-life calculations are currently
implemented in a service life-tracking program whose
predictions are used as a basis for decision-making on
when an aircraft is nearing the end of its usable service
life.
In the past, performance obsolescence was the leading
cause of removal of an air platform from the naval
aviation inventory. However, in the post-cold-war
budgetary and operational environment, the naval
aviation community may be required to delay vehicle
retirement until aircraft reach the limits of their
predicted fatigue lives.
In order to manage air vehicle fleets to these new,
historically untested lifetime boundaries, the
uncertainties of the fatigue life prediction
methodologies must be clearly and quantitatively
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
predictions do not account for the inherent variability of
all of the design and operational parameters that
contribute to fatigue failures in airframe components
(aleatory uncertainty). In addition, the strain-life
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
grow in metallic components. Models to accurately
describe the physics of the small crack nucleation and
growth process remain elusive, and the strain-life
methodology remains to date the best general-purpose
method of approximating fatigue crack initiation in a
structural component. The empiricism of the strain-life
method introduces additional uncertainty to the fatigue
life prediction in the form of modeling errors (epistemic
uncertainty), which can only be quantified by
comparing detailed life predictions to component
failures experienced the field. This is not easily
accomplished, since most components will not initiate
failures until near the end of their useful lives, and
modeling error estimates for one component may be
substantially different for other components with
different geometries, loads and material properties.
To meet the challenge of evaluating life uncertainty in
aging aircraft, a research effort is underway to extend
the current strain-life approach with the development of
a probability-based strain life model. The probabilistic
model will quantify the scatter in the basic variables of
the fatigue life calculation, and will estimate the
modeling error using laboratory data from several
aircraft component and subcomponent tests. The goal
is a methodology that will enable management to assess
the overall structural reliability of an air vehicle.
Steps to develop methods of estimating uncertainty in
the basic fatigue life variables have recently been
undertaken by the authors. Preliminary work in
modeling a probabilistic strain-life curve for AA 7050-
T7451 has been proceeding2. Efforts to characterize
uncertainty in the other basic fatigue life variables are
ongoing.
Research to characterize and reduce modeling errors of
a probabilistic life prediction method is centered on the
existing implementation of the deterministic strain-life
model. In evaluating the fatigue life of a component,
the nominal loads on a structure must be reduced to
local stress and strain values in the neighborhood of
notches or stress concentrations where fatigue cracks
are expected to initiate. If the neighboring stresses in
the notch region are purely elastic, the theoretical stress
concentration factor is used to estimate notch stresses
and strains. However, if the material in the notch
region is plastically loaded, the stress and strain fields
will no longer be proportional. Such cases are typically
dealt with using Neuber’s Rule3, which relates the
theoretical stress concentration in the notch to the
geometric mean of the local stress and strain
concentrations (Eqn. 1).
K t = Kσ Kε (1)
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Topper, et al. modified Neuber’s Rule for use in fatigue
loading, where the theoretical stress concentration
factor can be replaced by the theoretical fatigue notch
factor, and the static stress and strain parameters are
replaced by their cyclic stress and strain amplitude
counterparts.4 If the net section stresses and strains are
elastic, Eqn. 1 can be rewritten to relate the applied load
to the local notch stresses and strains (Eqn. 2).
(K f
∆S )
2
= ∆σ∆ε (2)
E
Because of its simplicity, this method of predicting
notch stress and strain behavior has been widely used in
strain-life based crack initiation predictions. However,
the underlying theory of Neuber was derived only for a
single notch geometry, but has historically been applied
to a wide variety of fatigue problems. In more general
situations of the type encountered in aerospace
structures, strict geometric similitude may not be
satisfied for components with complicated geometries,
or that do not operate under purely plane stress
conditions.
Due to the potential of encountering significant
modeling error associated with the liberal use of
Neuber’s rule in strain-life calculations, a research
effort has been initiated to characterize the uncertainty
of Neuber’s rule for notch geometries of a few
characteristic aerospace structural details. The results
are applicable to any static stress or fatigue analyses
that seek to quantify plasticity in a local area on a
component.
FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION
Neuber’s equation for stress and strain concentrations
under non-linear deformation was analytically derived
in Ref. 3 for a 2-D notched prismatic body under pure
shear stress conditions. The use of modern finite
element techniques allow the original theory to be
investigated for its applicability to more general states
of stress, where multiaxial stresses may exist at the
surface of an arbitrary notch geometry. The following
analysis is limited to problems where the nominal
loading is unidirectional, and where the stress state in
the notch region is dominated by a single principal
direction, with the principal stress directions remaining
fixed as the structure is loaded and unloaded
(proportional loading). Plasticity is limited to the
general vicinity of the notch region, and the
deformations in the remaining structure are purely
elastic. These conditions allow the use of the simpler
Deformation Theory of Plastic Flow in place of the
more general Incremental Flow Theory.
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
solutions in Fig. 3 show that the local stress-strain
product deviates from the theory as plasticity is
increasingly encountered in the notch. The notch
midplane correlation is somewhat better than the
uniaxial stress correlation at the notch edge, with the
transverse stresses at the notch mid-plane varying from
11-22% of the first principal stress at the notch surface.
Correlation for the AA 7075 material is also somewhat
better than for AA 7050. This is a result of the
differences in the stress-strain curve shapes of the two
materials. Also, the higher yield strength of AA 7075
means that the plastic zone in the notch will be smaller
for this material at a given load level.
For fatigue life calculations, it is desirable to have a
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
can be plotted directly as a function of load. In the case
of Neuber’s rule, Eqn. 3 forms a set of hyperbolas that
intersect the stress-strain curve at the values of stress
and strain in the notch. The stress-strain curve and Eqn.
3 are then iterated to solve for the notch stresses and
strains at a given applied load.
At the edge of the notch in the plate, the cyclic stress-
strain curve derived from axial coupon tests can be used
directly in the iteration, but at the mid-plane of the
notch, the cyclic stress-strain curve must be modified to
account for the biaxial state of stress at the notch
surface. Lacking a finite element model to perform the
biaxial correction, Hooke’s law can be applied to the
linear portion of the curve, and deformation plasticity
theory can be applied to the non-linear portion of the
curve, but the transverse strain must be estimated based
on the thickness of the plate. If plane strain conditions
are assumed at the mid-plane of the plate, this may
introduce additional error in the notch calibration
relation for moderately thick plates that do not develop
pure plane strain conditions in the center. For the
examples illustrated here, the local stress-strain curve
was extracted from the finite element model at the point
of interest, and used to derive the notch strain
calibration relations for Neuber’s rule. It is recognized
that requiring a finite element model of the local notch
area to obtain the corrected stress-strain curve defeats
the purpose of using Neuber’s approximation, but this
was done for these examples to ensure a favorable
comparison between Neuber’s rule and the finite
element solutions.
The Neuber notch strain calibrations were solved in
MATLAB® (Ver. 6), using a cubic spline interpolation
®
MATLAB is a registered trademark of The
MathWorks, Inc.
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
of the local stress-strain curve values extracted from the
finite element model. The iterations converged to less
than 10-6 relative error. The resulting calibration curves
are plotted in Fig. 4 for the notched plate edge, and in
Fig. 5 for the notched plate mid-plane. Both charts
show that Neuber’s approximation significantly
overpredicts the notch strain response under uniaxial
and biaxial stress states. These results are similar to
notch strain calibrations reported by Dowling, et al. for
two different types of steel.7 Relative error in the notch
strain prediction is plotted in Fig. 6, with the error at the
notch edge being larger than at the midplane. This
shows that for this particular example, biaxial stresses
do not have a detrimental effect on Neuber
approximation accuracy relative to plane stress
predictions.
CIRCUMFERENTIAL NOTCHED ROD
Use of analytical methods to derive the equations of
Neuber’s rule require a simple geometric configuration
for analysis. The geometry used in Ref. 3 is that of a 2-
D symmetric notched prismatic body under shear stress.
Unfortunately, there are few aerospace structures where
this type of model can be readily applied. A more
useful configuration is that of a round bar with a
circumferential notch under tension (Fig. 7). For this
example, the bar is 1.0 in. in diameter, with a 0.030 in.
notch radius, 0.23 in. notch depth, and 60° notch angle.
The elastic stress concentration taken from the finite
element model is Kt = 3.3.
Neuber’s rule correlations for the two material types are
plotted in Fig. 8, and are similar to the notch mid-plane
correlations of the flat plate. This is because there are
large tensile hoop stresses present in the circumferential
notch specimen due to in-plane bending at the surface
of the notch region. The hoop stresses are 67% of the
principal stress under elastic load, and 57% of the
principal stress under notch plasticity. The Neuber
notch strain calibrations were derived using the same
methods as in the notched plate example, and are
plotted in Fig. 9. These results are also similar to the
notch mid-plane results of the flat plate. Relative strain
error in the Neuber approximation is plotted in Fig. 10,
and is noticeably higher than for the notched plate mid-
plane results, probably because of the large hoop
stresses in the notched round bar.
LAP SPLICE JOINT
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
can be idealized as a single flat plate with a loaded pin
in the hole, but will be analyzed here with a half-
symmetry model of the entire joint to incorporate the
correct pin loading at the most highly stressed hole.
The finite element model of the joint is shown in Fig.
11. The plates are 1.0 in. wide, with 1.0 in. spacing
between the pins. The pins are 0.25 in. diameter, with
zero interference in all of the holes. Pin material is
steel, with a modulus of 30 Msi. The center plate is
0.125 in. thick, and the splice plates are 0.063 in. thick.
Due to limitations in the finite element code, only
planar elasticity problems can be modeled using the
fastener elements, so all of the plates assume plane
stress conditions. Pin friction is ignored in the analysis.
For the maximum combined pin bearing and bypass
case, the most highly loaded holes in the center plate
are at the outermost pins from the symmetry plane, and
for the splice plates, the innermost pins from the
symmetry plane. Since the splice plates are half the
thickness of the center plate, the stresses at the most
highly loaded holes in each plate are equivalent. The
elastic stress concentration taken from the finite
element model is Kt = 2.82 at the edge of the hole.
Neuber’s rule correlations for the two material types are
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
pins exert a radial compressive stress on the hole edges
at locations normal to the applied load. The radial
stresses vary in magnitude from 8-20% of the first
principal stress at the notch surface. The resulting
biaxial state of stress is similar in proportion to the flat
plate notch mid-plane stresses, hence the similarity in
Neuber’s rule correlations.
The Neuber notch strain calibrations and relative strain
error curves are plotted in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively.
These results are similar to the relations plotted
previously for the other examples.
RESULTS
The results of the notch strain analyses for the three
structural details investigated here show that Neuber’s
approximation significantly overpredicts local strain
when plasticity is encountered. The amount of strain
error in the approximation is strongly influenced by the
multiaxial state of stress at the notch surface, and by the
shape of the elastic-plastic stress-strain curve. Plots of
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
data show a wider range of strain error scatter and curve
shapes than for the AA 7075 aluminum. This is
because the small value of the cyclic strain hardening
modulus for AA 7050 leads to little stiffness in the
plastic strain range relative to the Ramberg-Osgood
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
type strain hardening behavior of the AA 7075 material.
This characteristic results in a larger plastic zone for the
same given notch geometry.
The state of multiaxial stress in the notch region affects
the Neuber strain prediction error, but not in a
consistent manner. The strain prediction error curves
for the lap splice joint fall between the curves for the
flat plate notch edge and mid-plane. This is most likely
a result of the differences in the second principal
stresses for the two examples. The flat plate notch mid-
plane has a tensile transverse stress, and the splice
plates have a compressive radial stress.
The circumferentially notched round bar has a strain
prediction error curve that is between the flat plate
notch edge and the splice joint curves. The
proportionately larger second principal stresses
contribute to the increased strain prediction error as
compared to the other examples that have second
principal stresses that are proportionately smaller. The
flat plate notch edge results show that the uniaxial
stress case may give the worst strain prediction error
when compared to multiaxial stress cases.
APPLICATION
The previous analysis results are applicable to cases of
monotonic loading from an initial state of zero stress
and strain. To apply these results to cases of cyclic
loading, the Neuber relation of Eqn. 3 must be replaced
by it’s cyclic counterpart (Eqn. 2). Variables are then
expressed as a function of stress, strain and load
amplitudes. An example of a notch fatigue analysis
using Neuber’s rule is shown in Bannantine.8 To apply
the finite element results to a notch fatigue analysis
using the strain-life approach, a polynomial curve fit of
the notch strain calibration chart can be performed to
give an equation that relates applied load to the local
notch strain. For cyclic loading, Massing-type material
behavior is assumed, and the strain and load values on
the calibration chart must be doubled to give the notch
strain amplitude as a function of load amplitude. The
same approach to notch strain calibration can be used in
the case of Neuber’s rule, and would eliminate the need
to iterate Neuber’s relation (Eqn. 3) with the stress-
strain curve to find the notch stress and strain at each
load reversal.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the notch strain analyses for the three
structural details investigated here show that Neuber’s
approximation significantly overpredicts local strain
when plasticity (0.8% to 2.0% strain) is encountered in
the notch. The state of multiaxial stress in the notch
region significantly affects the Neuber strain prediction
error, but not in a consistent manner. The shape of the
elastic-plastic stress-strain curve also has an effect, but
to a lesser extent than the multiaxial stress state. It is
therefore recommended that error estimates of Neuber’s
approximation for notch strain be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis for any combination of structural
geometry or material properties.
The effect that the Neuber approximation error has on a
subsequent fatigue life calculation is highly dependent
on the loading spectrum that the notch area is exposed
to. For load spectrums with a large percentage of
plastic strain reversals, or for spectrums with a small
percentage of plastic strain reversals that result in large
residual stresses for subsequent elastic strain reversals,
Neuber error may lead to significant over or under-
conservatism in the resulting fatigue life calculations.
For load spectrums with peak strain amplitudes that
have only a small amount of plasticity, Neuber error
may contribute very little to the resulting fatigue life
calculation.
In light of the magnitude of the estimation errors shown
here, any use of Neuber’s rule to approximate notch
strains should be looked upon critically by engineers
concerned with model solution accuracy in a notched
region. In recent years, the proliferation of low-cost,
robust finite element tools has enabled engineers to
perform complex non-linear analyses on a wide variety
of structures with relative ease. These tools have
largely eliminated the necessity of imposing Neuber’s
rule to solve for notch strain behavior, except in the
cases of very complex problems, or where only a quick,
rough estimate is needed.
The early research efforts that validated the ability of
the strain-life methodology to predict fatigue cracks in
areas of stress concentration made extensive use of
Neuber’s rule. In evaluating whether to eliminate the
use of Neuber’s rule in the existing implementation of
the strain-life methodology, it must be considered that
the conservatism of Neuber’s rule may be masking non-
conservatism in other simplifying assumptions of the
methodology. These effects will be evaluated in the
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
REFERENCES
1
Dowling, N.E. and Thangjitham, S., “An Overview
and Discussion of Basic Methodology for Fatigue,”
Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 31st Volume, edited
by G.R. Halford and J.P. Gallagher, STP 1389,
ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 3-36.
2
Rusk, D.T. and Hoffman, P.C., “Developments in
Probability-Based Strain-Life Analysis,” presented at
the 5th Joint NASA/FAA/DoD Conference on Aging
Aircraft, Kissimmee, Florida, 18 Sept. 2001.
3
Neuber, H., “Theory of Stress Concentration for
Shear-Strained Prismatical Bodies with Arbitrary
Nonlinear Stress-Strain Laws,” Journal of Applied
Mechanics, ASME Transactions, Vol. E28, Dec.
1961, pp. 544-550.
4
Topper, T.H., Wetzel, R.M. and Morrow, J.,
“Neuber’s Rule Applied to Fatigue of Notched
Specimens,” Journal of Materials, Vol. 4, No. 1,
March 1969, pp. 200-209.
5
Boller, C. and Seeger, T., “Materials Data for Cyclic
Loading, Part D: Aluminum and Titanium Alloys,”
Elsevier Science Publishers, 1987, pp. 87-89.
6
Roark, R.J. and Young, W.C., “Formulas for Stress
and Strain, Fifth Ed.,” McGraw-Hill, New York,
1975, p. 594.
7
Dowling, N.E., Brose, W.R. and Wilson, W.K.,
“Notched Member Fatigue Life Predictions by the
Local Strain Approach,” Fatigue Under Complex
Loading: Analyses and Experiments, edited by R.M.
Wetzel, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Warrendale, PA, 1977, pp. 55-84.
8
Bannantine, J.A., Comer, J.J. and Handrock, J.L.,
“Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis,” Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990, pp. 140-
144.
 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