Fatigue Analysis in Pressure

Vessel Design by Local Strain

Arturs Kalnins
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3085
e-mail: ak01@Lehigh.edu
Approach: Methods and Software
Requirements
The purpose, methods for the analysis, software requirements, and meaning of the results
of the local strain approach are discussed for fatigue evaluation of a pressure vessel or
its component designed for cyclic service. Three methods that are consistent with the
approach are evaluated: the cycle-by-cycle method and two half-cycle methods, twice-
yield and Seeger’s. For the cycle-by-cycle method, the linear kinematic hardening model
is identified as the cyclic plasticity model that produces results consistent with the local
strain approach. A total equivalent strain range, which is entered on a material strain-life
curve to read cycles, is defined for multiaxial stress situations 关DOI: 10.1115/1.2137770兴

1 Introduction above condition leads to a margin that may be judged overly

Coffin 关1兴 and Dowling et al. 关2兴 explain the basic idea of the
local strain approach. Detailed coverage is given in Chapter 14,
共“Strain-Based Approach to Fatigue”兲 of Dowling’s book 关3兴. It
has been used in practice for fatigue assessment of pressure vessel
components. Its appeal is the applicability to any smooth local
geometry that can be defined. The ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel 共B&PV兲 Code 关4兴 uses the local strain approach for fatigue
evaluation on plastic basis.
The paper considers applications to cases in which cyclic action
experiences alternating plasticity. The main objectives are to iden-
tify the methods and software that are capable of calculating stress
and strain ranges within the framework of the local strain ap-
proach and to identify a multiaxial total equivalent strain range
that is consistent with the approach. This strain range is the coun-
terpart to the uniaxial total strain range that is listed as ordinate of
a material strain-life curve.
2 Basic Assumptions and Consequences
The local strain approach follows from the assumption that a
sufficiently small crack of the same size is developed at about the
same number of cycles on the surfaces of a smooth test specimen
and a smooth location of a pressure vessel component, when both
are cycled at the same surface strain range and made of the same
material. It is assumed that this equality holds true from the very
first crack appearance up to some crack size, which depends on
the local geometry and the magnitude of the cycled strain range
and is generally unknown.
Although the actual crack size up to which the specimen-
component equality can be relied on is of no importance in its
design procedure, the local strain approach is justified for design
purposes only on the condition that the number of cycles to de-
velop a crack of a given size in the component is not less than that
in the smooth fatigue test specimens, at least on a statistical basis.
If that is true, then the allowable cycles for a component taken
from a material design fatigue curve that is constructed from the
smooth specimen data can be expected to have a positive margin
with respect to failure 共however defined, but the same for the
specimens and component兲.
It is possible that for some pressure vessel applications the
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 8,
2005; final manuscript received October 10, 2005. Review conducted by G. E. Otto
Widera.
generous. If that is unacceptable, a different design procedure has
to be formulated and followed. If that is not an option, the gener-
ous margin has to be accepted as part of the price for the simplic-
ity and wide applicability 共any modelable geometry, loading, and
material兲 of the local strain approach.
As an illustration of a case for which the above condition is
met, consider a component in which a crack enters a plastic zone
with a decreasing strain range field that is surrounded by elasti-
cally cycled material, which is a common situation in pressure
vessels. It is expected that, after a certain crack size is reached, the
crack growth in this component will be slower than that in a
small-diameter round bar fatigue specimen, in which the crack
enters an almost uniform strain range field. The paper by Kalnins
and Dowling 关5兴 supports this scenario. It uses test data cited in
Figs. 10.8 and 14.9 of Dowling’s book 关3兴 on blunt double-notch
plate components and smooth, 6.35 mm dia 共0.25 in. dia兲, round
fatigue test specimens, both made from the same heat of AISI
4340 steel. Both are cycled to two predefined conditions: the ap-
pearance of a 0.5 mm 共0.02 in.兲 crack and failure. Figures 1 and 2
show the number of cycles obtained from the tests for each of the
two conditions.
As seen from Fig. 1, the number of cycles to develop a 0.5 mm
crack in the fatigue specimens and plate components is about the
same for the lower strain ranges, but for strain ranges above
0.014, the plate takes more cycles to reach a 0.5 mm crack. In Fig.
2, the difference in cycles to failure is far greater. For example, for
a strain range of 0.0136, the specimen fails at 2400 cycles, while
it takes 6027 cycles for the plate component to reach failure in the
test.
These results show that the above condition is met. If the strain-
life curve is constructed from the specimen data, the positive mar-
gin for the plate components is apparent. Of course, for design
purposes, factors will be applied to the specimen curve, which
will increase the actual design margin.
3 Irregular Loading
The local strain approach applies to constant-amplitude cycling.
If the loading histogram consists of an irregular loading pattern, it
has to be resolved into loading ranges that produce individual
stress-strain cycles before the local-strain analysis can be begun.
This means that if a repeated loading block is defined over a time
interval for which all loading components are specified at a num-
ber of time points, the local strain approach requires that all stress-
strain cycles that are produced by the loading block be identified.
This can be achieved by appropriate cycle-counting methods 共see

2 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006 Copyright © 2006 by ASME Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 10 Oct 2007 to 203.78.221.48. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 1 Cycles to reach 0.5 mm crack in plate and specimen by
test
关3兴兲. The accumulated usage factor is then calculated over all the
individual stress-strain cycles of the loading block, following the
Palmgren-Miner rule 共关3兴, Chap. 9兲. The same applies to cases in
which more than one loading block may be applied in a random
sequence, each repeated a specified number of times. In the re-
mainder of the paper, the analyses will be assumed applied to one
stress-strain cycle.
4 Stabilized Cycle
As part of the design procedure, the local strain approach as-
sumes that a single value of a strain range is used for assessing
fatigue damage for the life of a pressure vessel component. Since
hardening and softening with cycles accompany the initial phase
of cycling, during which the strain and stress ranges may change,
the question is: What strain range shall it be? Since for many
metals the stress and strain ranges tend to stabilize, so that stabi-
lized hysteresis loops are experienced for the major part of life,
the obvious answer is to bypass the hardening and softening with
cycles and to accept the strain range of the stabilized cycle as
representative of whole life. In some cases, stabilization may be
difficult to achieve even until failure. Such cases notwithstanding,
the local strain approach assumes that the cyclic action from
which the cyclic stress-strain curve of the material is derived has
stabilized. That has to be accepted as part of the design procedure.
5 Cyclic Material Curve
Having established that stabilized action is the target, it follows
that the cyclic-stress-range–strain-range 共or amplitude兲 curve of
the material provides the information that is needed for the mate-
rial model used in the analysis. Such cyclic test data are available
for many materials. Typical curve fittings to these data can be
obtained in terms of three parameters: cyclic elastic modulus E, a
stress parameter, and an exponent.
Fig. 2 Cycles to reach failure in plate and specimen by test
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded 10 Oct 2007 to 203.78.221.48. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 3 Monotonic „lines only… and cyclic „markers… curves for
SA-516 Grade 70 steel. L denotes longitudinal and T denotes
transverse orientation of specimens machined from a plate.
„Reprinted from Fig. 2 of †6‡, Copyright 1984, with permission
from Elsevier.…
Substitution of a monotonic curve for the cyclic curve may
cause problems. For example, Lefebre and Ellyin 关6兴 present
curve fittings to test data on specimens made of SA-516 Grade 70
steel, shown in Fig. 3. Stress amplitude is plotted versus strain
amplitude for cyclic loading and compared to plots for monotonic
loading. The material shows softening with cycles up to strain
amplitude of about 0.4% and hardening above that level. Prob-
lems may arise within strain amplitudes of 0.1–0.4%, where the
use of the monotonic curve can predict strain ranges in a compo-
nent that err on the unconservative side.
Of course, an accurate curve fitting to the cyclic data of the
material under consideration is preferable, if one is available.
However, for design purposes, approximations could be agreed on
for certain classes of materials, which would parallel those of the
design fatigue curves now used in the ASME B&PV Code 关4兴.
6 Applicability
The local strain approach is applicable to cases in which all
structural features that affect fatigue damage are defined and can
be modeled with sufficient accuracy. It is not applicable to cases
in which some structural detail is known to affect fatigue damage
but cannot be modeled, either because its geometry is unknown
共e.g., flaws at the weld toe of an untreated weld兲 or because its
model is unreliable 共e.g., very sharp notch兲. Such cases require
approaches that incorporate the unmodelable details in the test
data, such as, for example, those described by Maddox 关7兴 for
weld joint classes, and more recently by Dong et al. 关8兴.
Limitations on loading are not so clear. Proportional loading
presents no problems, but cases when the principal stress and
strain axes rotate have been shown to pose a problem. Itoh et al.
关9兴 present test data for shear and axial strains that are imposed
nonproportionally to the test section of a thin cylindrical shell,
forcing the principal axes to rotate. The data show unsatisfactory
correlation with predictions using the principal and equivalent
strain ranges that are in the current ASME B&PV Code 关4兴.
Kalnins 关10兴 has shown that the hysteresis loops for some of the
nonproportional cases 共e.g., case 10 in 关9兴兲 exhibit no elastic un-
loading and the reversal points of different components do not
coincide, which prevents the use of the methods of Sec. 7. It may
FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 3

Fig. 4 Cyclic curve and calculated ranges
be that such situations are rare in pressure vessel components.
Whether a caveat for these cases is or is not needed in design
standards is an open question.
It is assumed for the remainder of the paper that stress and
strain reversal points of all nontrivial components coincide so that
a multiaxial equivalent stress-strain cycle can be defined 共Sec.
9.2兲. This is ensured for proportional loading. The conditions for
which it may also be true for nonproportional loading require
further investigation.
7 Methods and Software
As per Sec. 3, the analysis is applied to each individual stress-
strain cycle that is produced by the loading histogram. These
cycles must be identified, and the two time points at their stress
and strain reversals determined. The loading components at the
reversal points can then be evaluated and the loading range for the
cycle determined.
At this point, it has been established that the cyclic curve of the
material will be used to model the material and the loading will
consist of the loading range. Now the question is: What methods
and software will solve the problem in a way that is consistent
with the local strain approach? Two basic methods are discussed:
cycle-by-cycle and half-cycle methods. For the latter, the twice-
yield and Seeger’s methods are included. The cycle-by-cycle
method is discussed only because of its appeal for modeling cyclic
action, but, when used for design purposes, it requires far more
effort and is less generic to software than the half-cycle methods.
The stress and strain ranges obtained by all three methods are the
same.
7.1 Cycle-by-Cycle Method. Elastic-plastic finite element
analysis 共FEA兲 is performed over a sufficient number of repeti-
tions of a selected cycle until the stress and strain values at the
reversal points stabilize. The cyclic-stress-amplitude–strain-
amplitude curve of the material is used as input for the monotonic
uniaxial material model. The loading can be specified as either
between the loading at the reversal points of the cycle or between
plus and minus of the loading amplitude. If in the former case the
hysteresis loop indicates a mean stress, its effect is neglected as
per Sec. 8. Since up- and downloading is performed, a cyclic
plasticity model must be specified to model the unloading and
reloading phases. Two cyclic plasticity models will be considered
for the cycle-by-cycle method. One includes linear and the other
nonlinear hardening. 共For details, see the ABAQUS 关11兴 Standard
User’s Manual II, 11.2.2-2, or Refs. 关12,13兴兲. The question is
which cyclic plasticity model is consistent with the local strain
approach. To answer that question, a validity check is given next.
7.1.1 Cyclic Plasticity Validity Check. According to Sec. 4,
the cyclic stress-range–strain-range 共or amplitude兲 curve is used,
which means that the hysteresis loops in the specimens stabilize.
Since the material of the component is supposed to be the same as
that of the test specimens, the loops in the components should also
4 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006
Downloaded 10 Oct 2007 to 203.78.221.48. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 5 Stabilized hysteresis loop
stabilize in the same way. The software that is used for the cycle-
by-cycle method must reflect this behavior. This means that it
must be able to replicate the cyclic curve for a uniaxial stress state
in a component. In other words, the calculated stress and plastic
strain ranges must lie on the cyclic-stress-range–plastic-strain-
range curve that has been input. This requirement will be used as
a validity check in evaluating the cyclic plasticity models of the
software.
To illustrate the validity check, consider a uniaxial stress state
cycled in strain control using a cyclic plasticity model that is to be
checked for consistency with the local strain approach. The cyclic
curve shown in Fig. 4 共rewritten in amplitudes兲 is input for the
monotonic material model. The calculated stabilized hysteresis
loop is shown Fig. 5. It shows a plastic strain range of 0.033 and
a stress range of 1330 MPa. Is the cyclic plasticity model consis-
tent with the local strain approach? This is decided by plotting the
coordinates for the calculated ranges, 0.033 and 1330, in Fig. 4. It
is seen that this point lies on the cyclic curve. If the cycling were
done at different strain ranges, the cyclic curve in Fig. 4 would be
duplicated. Therefore, the cyclic plasticity model used in this
analysis is consistent with the local strain approach.
7.1.2 Linear Hardening in Cyclic Plasticity. Cyclic plasticity
models with linear hardening involve two separate components:
isotropic and kinematic. The model with isotropic hardening ex-
pands the yield surface until purely elastic action remains, as
shown in Fig. 6. This result does not meet the validity check of
Sec. 7.1.1 and is not acceptable. The kinematic component is con-
sidered next.
Cyclic plasticity models with linear kinematic hardening have
been developed that assume Masing behavior 共Sec. 2.5 of 关14兴兲,
according to which magnifying the cyclic stress-strain amplitude
curve by a factor of 2 approximates the two branches of a stabi-
lized hysteresis loop. These models pass the validity check of Sec.
7.1.1. Among the popular finite element programs, ANSYS 关15兴
linear kinematic hardening model KINH supports a multilinear
Fig. 6 Stabilized cycle using linear isotropic hardening model
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 7 Stabilized cycle using linear kinematic hardening model
共curved兲 curve fitting to the cyclic data for the input of the mono-
tonic material model, while that of ABAQUS 关11兴 Version 6.3-1
supports only a bilinear curvefit to the cyclic data when the pa-
rameter “hardening= kinematic” is invoked. 共Note that ABAQUS
permits the input of a curved curve fitting to the cyclic data for the
input of the monotonic material model when no cyclic plasticity
with kinematic hardening is specified, which is the case for the
half-cycle methods.兲
For an illustration, consider a single eight-noded brick element,
cycled in uniaxial strain control between a strain of 0.03 and
−0.01. Figure 7 shows1 the stress-strain response for which the
stress range of 1330 MPa is obtained. When cycled with the same
strain range, but fully reversed between 0.02 and −0.02, exactly
the same stress range is predicted. In both calculations, the cyclic
curve in Fig. 4 共rewritten in amplitudes兲 is used. The square
marker in Fig. 4 shows the point with the coordinates of the cal-
culated stress range and plastic strain range. The fact that it lies on
the cyclic curve indicates that the test of Sec. 7.1.1 has been met.
7.1.3 Nonlinear Cyclic Plasticity Models. Nonlinear cyclic
plasticity models 共e.g., 关11–13,15兴兲, which contain combined
isotropic/kinematic components, are not designed to receive a ge-
neric cyclic stress-strain curve of the material as input and calcu-
late the stress and strain ranges that represent a stabilized cycle of
the same material. The problem is that the input is written for a
specified strain range, which is the end product of the analysis
and, therefore, unknown before the analysis. For this reason, the
nonlinear hardening models used in Refs. 关12,13兴 do not meet the
validity check of Sec. 7.1.1.
The following example illustrates the problem. Again a single
eight-noded brick element is subjected to fully reversed, strain-
controlled cycling in one direction, producing a uniaxial stress
state. ABAQUS 关11兴 “data-type= stabilized” parameter is selected,
for which an approximation derived from the cyclic curve shown
in Fig. 8 is used as input. No isotropic component is used. The
model includes only the nonlinear kinematic 共NLK兲 component.
The response is shown by the curve marked NLK in Fig. 9. It
shows clearly that the stabilized cycle of the cyclic curve that was
input has not been replicated. The stress range given by the NLK
model is 1240 MPa, while the corresponding value on the cyclic
curve is 962 MPa, which is also plotted in Fig. 8. It is clear that
the model does not replicate the cyclic curve that has been input
and fails the validity check of Sec. 7.1.1.
7.2 Half-Cycle Methods. These methods take advantage of
the stabilized form of the hysteresis loop of the cycle. There is no
need to perform the cycle-by-cycle method over a number of
cycles if the two branches of the loop are geometrically similar, as
shown in Fig. 7. FEA over just one branch of the loop gives the
desired stress and strain ranges. That is the basis of the half-cycle
methods. They require only one monotonic FEA of one load step,
1
Jürgen Rudolph of the University of Dortmund, Germany, performed the calcu-
lations for this figure using ANSYS KINH linear kinematic hardening model.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded 10 Oct 2007 to 203.78.221.48. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 8 Cyclic curve and calculated ranges using NLK model
with no unloading and reloading, and do not require cyclic plas-
ticity models. The advantage is simplicity 共no FEA over cycles兲
and that they can be performed with any finite element program
that has an incremental plasticity option for static loading. The
half-cycle methods give strain and stress ranges that, for practical
purposes, are the same as those obtained by the cycle-by-cycle
method of Sec. 7.1. The two half-cycle methods are considered
next.
7.2.1 Twice-Yield Method. Theoretical support of this method
can be found in the work of Mroz 关16兴. Dowling 关17兴 and Dowl-
ing and Wilson 关18兴 applied it to some special cases. More re-
cently, Kalnins 关19兴 proposed it as a general method for design
and called it the twice-yield method. It is applicable to cyclic
primary and nonprimary 共e.g., transient thermal兲 loading; that is,
its applicability is the same as that of the cycle-by-cycle method.
The only limitations are stated in Sec. 6.
From an FEA perspective, the twice-yield method is explained
by the observation that if in the input the load is specified as the
loading range and the cyclic stress-range–strain-range curve is
used for the material model, then in the output the stress compo-
nents are the stress component ranges and the strain components
are the strain component ranges. Thus, in one FEA load step, for
which the loading is specified from zero to that of the loading
range, the output provides the stress and strain ranges that are
needed in the local strain approach.
When coupled with the multiaxial total strain range 共Sec. 9.2兲,
the twice-yield method is far simpler than the cycle-by-cycle
method. After the reversal points of the loading for the cycle and
the loading range have been determined, the method is straight-
forward. The quantities that are taken from the output are the
multiaxial equivalent stress range, ⌬␴eq, given by Eq. 共4兲, and the
Fig. 9 Calculated cycle using NLK model
FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 5
 equivalent plastic strain range, ⌬␧ peq, given by Eq. 共5兲. Typical
finite element programs calculate them automatically. For ex-
ample, ABAQUS 关11兴 calls ⌬␴eq MISES, and ⌬␧ peq PEMAG. ANSYS
关15兴 uses similar variable names in the output. A generic output
file is scanned for the maximum value of ⌬␧ peq, and ⌬␴eq is then
recorded at the same location. No search of the solution database
is required. The total strain range is then obtained from Eq. 共6兲
using a hand calculator.
7.2.2 Seeger’s Method. Seeger gives the general background
in 关20兴. Rudolph and Weiss 关21兴 describe the procedure and dis-
cuss its application to weld seams with postweld treatment. It is
applicable to proportional loading; that is, to cases in which all
loading components are multiplied by a single function of time,
say, L.
Seeger’s method performs only one FEA of the component
from L = 0 to the greatest magnitude of L on the histogram and
records a selected stress 共␴兲 and strain 共␧兲 measure at a number of
L values that is sufficient to permit a curve fitting by an equation
共e.g, Ramberg-Osgood兲. The curve fitting between L and ␧ is
called the component yield curve and that between ␴ and ␧ is
called the local ␴-␧ curve. After the two curvefits are derived, the
unload branch of the hysteresis loop of each cycle is constructed
by assuming Masing behavior 共see 关14兴兲. The stress and strain
ranges are determined from this branch. For details, see 关20,21兴.
Regarding the comparison between the two half-cycle methods,
twice-yield method performs an FEA for each stress-strain cycle
separately, but determines the stress and strain ranges with no
postprocessing. The advantage of Seeger’s method is that the re-
sults of a single FEA can be used for a number of stress-strain
cycles with different loading amplitudes of the same set of load-
ing.
8 Mean Stress
What is known about each stabilized stress-strain cycle is only
its loading range, which is used to calculate the stress and strain
ranges of the stabilized cycle. The loading may begin with asym-
metric components at the reversal points, but once the stress-strain
cycle has stabilized, no information is available regarding the
mean stress of the cycle. Since the only description of cyclic
behavior of the material is taken from the cyclic stress-range–
strain-range curve 共Sec. 5兲, which contains no information on
mean stress, the magnitude of mean stress, if one is present, is
unknown.
The lack of knowledge of the mean stress is not a problem
when the design fatigue curves of the ASME B&PV Code 关4兴 are
used, in which mean stress is assumed zero when alternating plas-
ticity is present. This is supported by Ellyin 关14兴, who has shown
that mean stress approaches negligible magnitudes when test
specimens of SA-516 Grade 70 steel are cycled with various de-
grees of mean strain. A reasonable assumption is that the effect of
any mean stress that may actually occur in an individual cycle
with alternating plasticity in a real component can be neglected.
This is made part of the design procedure considered in this paper.
9 Multiaxial Stress and Strain Equivalents
The objective of this section is to obtain the multiaxial stress
and strain equivalents that are appropriate for the local strain ap-
proach. This will be achieved based on one multiaxial equivalent
hysteresis loop that represents the cycle as a whole. This loop is
⌬␴eq =
1
冑2
冑共⌬␴1 − ⌬␴2兲2 + 共⌬␴2 − ⌬␴3兲2 + 共⌬␴3 − ⌬␴1兲2 + 6共⌬␴212 + ⌬␴223 + ⌬␴231兲
6 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006
Downloaded 10 Oct 2007 to 203.78.221.48. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
needed here only to identify the consistent stress and strain pa-
rameters in the local strain approach. The user of any of the meth-
ods discussed in Sec. 7 does not have to construct one for an
application.
In multiaxial situations, hysteresis loops are commonly con-
structed for corresponding stress and strain components sepa-
rately. This does not reveal which strain range is entered on the
material strain-life curve. Kalnins et al. 关22兴 developed the con-
cept of a multiaxial equivalent hysteresis loop and showed how to
construct one. This is discussed next.
9.1 Uniaxial Stress State. To obtain a template for a multi-
axial stress case, a procedure is outlined first for a uniaxial stress
state in a fatigue test specimen. The calculation is performed with
the cycle-by-cycle method of Sec. 7.1 using the cyclic plasticity
model with linear kinematic hardening.
1. Plot stress versus axial plastic strain over one stabilized
cycle and obtain a hysteresis loop, which may look like that
in Fig. 5.
2. Note that its height is the uniaxial stress range ⌬␴, and its
width is the axial plastic strain range ⌬␧ p.
3. Calculate the axial total strain range from
⌬␴
⌬␧t = + ⌬␧ p 共1兲
E
where E is the modulus of the elastic portion of the cyclic
curve.
4. Enter ⌬␧t as ordinate on the strain-life curve to read cycles.
5. Note that ⌬␴ and ⌬␧ p lie on the cyclic stress range-plastic
strain range curve of the material, just like the square marker
in Fig. 4.
9.2 Multiaxial Stress State. The five steps in Sec. 9.1 are
now retraced for the multiaxial stress case.
1. Use again cycle-by-cycle method to calculate all stress 共␴ij兲
and plastic strain 共pij兲 components at a number of output points
over a stabilized cycle that would be sufficient to draw a graph.
Then the following two quantities are calculated at each of the
output points:
␴⬘eq = 1
冑2
冑共␴1⬘ − ␴2⬘兲2 + 共␴2⬘ − ␴3⬘兲2 + 共␴3⬘ − ␴1⬘兲2 + 6共␴12
⬘2 + ␴23
⬘2 + ␴31
⬘2兲
共2兲
␧⬘peq =
冑2
3
冑共p11⬘ − p22⬘ 兲2 + 共p22⬘ − p33⬘ 兲2 + 共p33⬘ − p11⬘ 兲2 + 3
⬘ + p23
2 共p12
2
⬘2 + p31
⬘2兲
共3兲
where ␴ij⬘ = ␴共r兲
ij ⫿ ␴ij,
共r兲
pij = pij ⫿ pij,
i , j = 1 , 2 , 3. The superscript
共r兲, r = 1 , 2, refers to the stress and plastic strain components at the
reversal points, t1 and t2. The minus signs apply to the right-hand
共r兲 共r兲
downward leg 共see Fig. 5兲 of the hysteresis loop, with ␴ij , pij
fixed at the upper extreme. The plus signs apply to the left-hand
共r兲 共r兲
upward leg of the loop, with ␴ij , pij fixed at the lower extreme.
The resulting curve of ␴⬘eq versus ␧⬘peq is the multiaxial equivalent
hysteresis loop of the cycle, which is the counterpart to the
uniaxial hysteresis loop of the fatigue test specimen. It may look
like that in Fig. 5.
2. Just as in the uniaxial case, this loop identifies the stress
range and strain range that describe the size of the loop. Its height
is the multiaxial equivalent stress range and its width is the mul-
tiaxial equivalent plastic strain range, which are now defined by
共4兲
Transactions of the ASME
 ⌬␧ peq =
冑2
3
冑共⌬p11 − ⌬p22兲2 + 共⌬p22 − ⌬p33兲2 + 共⌬p33 − ⌬p11兲2 + 23 共⌬p212 + ⌬p223 + ⌬p231兲
共2兲 共1兲 共2兲 共1兲
where ⌬␴ij = ␴ij − ␴ij , ⌬pij = pij − pij , i , j = 1 , 2 , 3. The super-
scripts denote the subscripts at reversal points t1 and t2.
3. In analogy to Eq. 共1兲, the multiaxial total equivalent strain
range2 is defined by
⌬␴eq
⌬␧eq = + ⌬␧ peq
E 6. Twice-yield is the simplest method for calculating the mul-
4. The strain range of Eq. 共6兲 is the multiaxial counterpart to the
uniaxial total strain range of Eq. 共1兲 and is entered on the strain-
life curve to read cycles.
5. According to the theory of plasticity used in typical FEA
software, the calculated ⌬␴eq and ⌬␧eq lie on the cyclic stress
range-plastic strain range curve that is input for the required
monotonic material model, just like the square marker in Fig. 4,
thus meeting the validity check of Sec. 7.1.1.
9.3 Discussion. The multiaxial total equivalent strain range of
Eq. 共6兲 is superior to the maximum principal total strain range,
which is used in the ASME B&PV Code 关4兴, both in Section
8-Div. 2, 4-136.2共c兲, and in Section 3, NB-3228.4共c兲. A simple
example of equibiaxial, in-plane cycling of a plate3 refutes its
general application in the local strain approach. The maximum
principal strain is perpendicular to the plate while the stress com-
ponent in that direction is zero. This produces a degenerate hys-
teresis loop of a straight line on the strain axis, which is not
consistent with the hysteresis loop observed in the cycling of a
fatigue test specimen.
The multiaxial total equivalent strain range is also superior to
the equivalent strain range that is defined in terms of total strain
component ranges, which is used in 关4兴, 共Section III-NH, Appen-
dix T, T-1413兲 for elevated temperature service. Its problem is that
it does not reduce to the correct strain range for a uniaxial stress
state.
The multiaxial total equivalent strain range of Eq. 共6兲 is defined
in terms of Mises stress and plastic strain components. It provides
a smooth transition to purely elastic action per cycle if the Mises
multiaxial elastic stress range is taken as the stress measure for
fatigue analysis in the elastic case. This was assumed here because
it has been recommended for the new Division 2 of Section 8 of
the ASME B&PV Code 关4兴.
However, the current 共2004兲 edition of the ASME B&PV Code
关4兴 uses the Tresca stress components for purely elastic action. In
that case, an effective combined strain range can be defined on the
basis of the maximum shear strain as shown in a recent paper by
Reinhardt 关23兴.
10 Conclusions
1. The local strain approach gives allowable cycles with a de-
sign margin that depends on the local geometry and the mag-
nitude of the cycled strain range.
2. The cycle-by-cycle method must be used with linear kine-
matic cyclic plasticity model, not isotropic. Nonlinear
isotropic/kinematic cyclic plasticity models do not give re-
sults consistent with the local strain approach and should not
be used.
3. The cycle-by-cycle method is more labor intensive and re-
quires software with a cyclic plasticity model but gives the
same strain ranges as the twice-yield or Seeger’s method.
2
This strain range was introduced by Dowling 关3兴 who called it the effective strain
range
3
Professor Masao Sakane of Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, Japan, pointed this
out to the author.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded 10 Oct 2007 to 203.78.221.48. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
共5兲
4. The twice-yield and Seeger’s methods require software with
only incremental plasticity model for monotonic loading. No
cyclic plasticity models are used.
5. The multiaxial total equivalent strain range defined in the
paper is the multiaxial counterpart to the strain range listed
on the design fatigue curve.
共6兲
tiaxial total equivalent strain range for a selected stress-
strain cycle.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported in part by the Pressure Vessel Re-
search Council through Grant No. 01-DIV2/PNV-23AS. The au-
thor also wishes to thank Dr. Wolf Reinhardt of Babcock & Wil-
cox Industries, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, for many helpful
discussions on the topic of this paper.
References
关1兴 Coffin, L. F., Jr., 1973, “Fatigue at High Temperature,” Fatigue at Elevated
Temperatures, American Soc. for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 520, pp.
5–34.
关2兴 Dowling, N. E., Brose, W. R., and Wilson, W. K., 1977, “Notched Member
Life Predictions by the Local Strain Approach,” Fatigue Under Complex
Loading—Analysis and Experiments, Society of Automotive Engineers, War-
rendale, PA.
关3兴 Dowling, N. E., 1999, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 2nd ed., Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
关4兴 ASME, 2004, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ASME, New York.
关5兴 Kalnins, A., and Dowling, N. E., 2004, “Design Criterion of Fatigue Analysis
on Plastic Basis by ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,” ASME J. Pres-
sure Vessel Technol., 126, pp. 461–465.
关6兴 Lefebre, D., and Ellyin, F., 1984, “Cyclic Response and Inelastic Strain Energy
in Low Cycle Fatigue,” Int. J. Fatigue, 6, pp. 9–15.
关7兴 Maddox, S. J., 1998, Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures, 2nd ed., Abington
Publishing, Cambridge, England.
关8兴 Dong, P., Hong, J. K., Osage, D. A., and Prager, M., 2003, “Master S-N Curve
Method for Fatigue Evaluation of Welded Components,” Weld. Res. Counc.
Bull., 474, pp. 1–50.
关9兴 Itoh, T., Sakane, M., Ohnami, M., and Socie, D. F., 1995, “Nonproportional
Low Cycle Fatigue Criterion for Type 304 Stainless Steel,” ASME J. Eng.
Mater. Technol., 117, pp. 285–292.
关10兴 Kalnins, A., 2003, “Fatigue Analysis of Pressure Vessels Based on Individual
Stress-Strain Cycles,” J. L. Zeman, ed., Proc. ICPVT-10, Vienna, July 7–10,
Oesterr. Ges. f. Schweisstechnik, Vienna, pp. 349–356.
关11兴 ABAQUS Finite Element Program, Version 6.1, Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen,
Inc., Pawtucket, RI, by Educational License to Lehigh University.
关12兴 Armstrong, P. J., and Frederick, C. O., 1966, “A Mathematical Representation
of the Multiaxial Bauschinger Effect,” Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, R&D
Department Report No. RD/B/N/731.
关13兴 Chaboche, J.-L., “Time-independent Constitutive Theories for Cyclic Plastic-
ity,” Int. J. Plast., 2共2兲, pp. 149–188.
关14兴 Ellyin, F., 1997, Fatigue Damage, Crack Growth and Life Prediction, Chap-
man and Hall, London.
关15兴 ANSYS Finite Element Program, Southpointe, Canonsburg, PA.
关16兴 Mroz, Z., 1973, “Boundary-Value Problems in Cyclic Plasticity,” Second Int.
Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Berlin, Vol. 6B, Part L,
Paper No. L7/6.
关17兴 Dowling, N. E., 1978, “Stress-Strain Analysis of Cyclic Plastic Bending and
Torsion,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 100, pp. 157–163.
关18兴 Dowling, N. E., and Wilson, W. K., 1979, “Analysis of Notch Strain for Cyclic
Loading,” 5th Int. Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Vol.
L, Berlin, Paper No. L13/4, pp. 1–8.
关19兴 Kalnins, A., 2001, “Fatigue Analysis of Pressure Vessels With Twice-Yield
Plastic FEA,” ASME Bound Vol. 419, pp. 43–52.
关20兴 Seeger, T., 1996, “Grundlagen fűr Betriebsfestigkeits-nachweise,” Stahlbau-
handbuch, Band 1, Teil B, Stahlbau-Verlagsgesellschaft, Kőln.
关21兴 Rudolph, J., and Weiss, E., 2003, “Service Durability of TIG Dressed and
Ground Weld Seams Subjected to Proportional Loading Criteria,” Proc.
ICPVT-10, J. L. Zeman, ed., Vienna, July 7–10, Oesterr. Ges. f. Schweisstech-
nik, Vienna, pp. 465–475.
关22兴 Kalnins, A., Updike, D. P., and Park, I., 1999, “Evaluation of Fatigue in the
Knuckle of a Torispherical Head in the Presence of a Nozzle,” Welding Re-
search Council Progress Report, Sept./Oct., pp. 31–93.
关23兴 Reinhardt, W., 2005, “Strain Measures for Fatigue Assessment Using Elastic-
Plastic FEA,” ASME PVP Conference, July, Denver, PVP2005–71547.
FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 7