Plastic strain of structures having stress concentration is estimated by using the simplified method or the finite element elastic solutions. As the simplified methods used in codes and standards, we can cite Neuber’s formula in the work by American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1995, “Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,” ASME-Code, Section 3, Division 1, Subsection NH) and by Neuber (1961, “Theory of Stress Concentration for Shear Strained Prismatic Bodies With Arbitrary Nonlinear Stress-Strain Law,” ASME, J. Appl. Mech., 28, pp.544–550) and elastic follow-up procedure in the work by Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers [2005, “Rules on Design and Construction for Nuclear Power Plants, 2005, Division 2: Fast Breeder Reactor” (in Japanese)]. Also, we will cite stress redistribution locus (SRL) method recently proposed as the other simplified method in the work by Shimakawa et al. [2002, “Creep-Fatigue Life Evaluation Based on Stress Redistribution Locus (SRL) Method,” JPVRC Symposium 2002, JPVRC/EPERC/JPVRC Joint Workshop sponsored by JPVRC, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 87–95] ad by High Pressure Institute of Japan [2005, “Creep-Fatigue Life Evaluation Scheme for Ferritic Component at Elevated Temperature,” HPIS C 107 TR 2005 (in Japanese)]. In the present paper, inelastic finite element analysis of perforated plate, whose stress concentration is about 2.2–2.5, is carried out, and stress and strain locus in inelastic range by the detailed finite element solutions is investigated to compare accuracy of the simplified methods. As strain-controlled loading conditions, monotonic loading, cyclic loading, and cyclic loading having hold time in tension under strain-controlled loading are assumed. The inelastic strain affects significantly life evaluation of fatigue and creep-fatigue failure modes, and the stress and strain locus is discussed from the detailed inelastic finite element solutions.
Definition of Stress and Strain Ranges for Multiaxial Fatigue Life Evaluation under Non-Proportional Loading
