Stress Concentration Factor

1/23/2020 Stress Concentration Factor - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Stress Concentration Factor

A stress-concentration factor is then applied to the data of box 3 and
combined with the Palmgren–Miner damage rule and a material S–N
curve to yield the annual cumulative damage, D, and fatigue life of
1/D years.
From: Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth Edition), 1994
Related terms:
Stress Concentration, Fatigue Life, S-N Curve, Circular Hole, Nominal Stress,
Stress Amplitude, Stress Range, Structural Stress
Fracture processes of aerospace materials

In Introduction to Aerospace Materials, 2012
18.3.2 Stress concentration factors for anisotropic (composite)

materials
The stress concentration factor for isotropic materials, such as metals and plastics,
is determined using the procedure described in 18.3.1. The situation is somewhat
different with anisotropic materials, such as fibre–polymer composites, because the
stress concentration factor is dependent on the elastic modulus in different
directions. The stress concentration factor Kt for an anisotropic material containing
a circular hole is given by:
[18.6]
where Ex and Ey are the Young’s moduli in the loading and transverse directions,
vxy is the Poisson’s ratio in the x–y plane, and Gxy is the in-plane shear modulus.
When there is a high degree of anisotropy, such as when all of the fibres in a
polymer composite are aligned in the load direction (i.e. Ex > > Ey), then the stress
concentration factor is very high at the hole edge. For example, the geometric
stress concentration for a unidirectional carbon–epoxy panel containing a circular
hole is about 6.6, whereas for an isotropic material it is only 3.0. Therefore,
considerable care must be exercised when using anisotropic materials in aircraft
components containing stress raisers such as fasteners holes, windows and cut-
outs.
One approach to reducing the stress concentration factor is increasing the
percentage of ± 45° and other off-axis plies in the composite. This increases the
shear modulus Gxy and brings the ratio of Ex/Ey closer to unity. Table 18.1 shows
the effect of reducing the number of axial (0°) plies and increasing the number of
± 45° plies on the stress concentration factor for a circular hole in a composite
panel. A composite with all ± 45° plies has the lowest stress concentration factor of
2, but it also has the lowest strength because of the absence of 0° plies. The best
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/stress-concentration-factor 1/20
compromise is a laminate that has a sufficient number of 0° plies to carry the load,
but also ± 45° plies to reduce the stress concentration factor. The two fibre lay-up
patterns most often used in carbon–epoxy composites, quasi-isotropic [0/± 45/90]
and cross-ply [0/90], have stress concentration factors of about 3 and 3.5,
respectively.
Table 18.1. Stress concentration factors for a 24-ply carbon–epoxy panel

containing a circular hole
Lay-up
Number of 0° plies Number of ± 45° plies Stress concentration factor Kt
24 0 6.6
16 8 4.1
12 12 3.5
8 16 3.0
0 24 2
Strengths of materials
J. Carvill, in Mechanical Engineer's Data Handbook, 1993
1.3.4 Stress concentration factors

Stress concentration factors are given for various common discontinuities; for
example, it can be seen that for a ‘wide plate’ with a hole the highest stress is 3
times the nominal stress. General values are also given for keyways, gear teeth,
screw threads and welds.
Stress concentration factor is defined as:
Plate with hole at centre of width

k=σmax/σ; σ =P/wh
σmax occurs at A and B.
d/w 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.55
K 3.00 3.03 3.14 3.36 3.74 4.32 4.70
Note: In this case the area of maximum cross-section is used.
Semi-infinite plate with hole near edge

σa = stress at A
σb = stress at B
σ = stress away from hole
Ka = σa/σ; Kb = σb/σ
r/c 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.85
Ka 3.00 3.05 3.15 3.25 3.40 3.70 4.12 4.85 6.12 7.15
Kb 3.00 3.03 3.07 3.10 3.15 3.18 3.25 3.32 3.42 3.50
Bending of stepped flat bar with fillets (values of K)
r/d
D/d 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30
1.01 1.64 1.44 1.32 1.28 1.24 — — —
1.02 1.94 1.66 1.46 1.38 1.32 — — —
1.05 2.42 2.04 1.74 1.60 1.48 1.40 1.34 1.29
1.10 2.80 2.34 1.96 1.78 1.60 1.49 1.40 1.31
1.20 3.30 2.68 2.21 1.96 1.70 1.55 1.44 1.34
1.50 3.80 2.98 2.38 2.08 1.78 1.59 1.48 1.36
2.00 — 3.14 2.52 2.20 1.86 1.64 1.51 1.37
3.00 — 3.30 2.68 2.34 1.93 1.67 1.53 1.38
Tension of stepped bar with fillets (values of K)
R/d
D/d 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
1.01 1.68 1.48 1.34 1.26 1.20 — — — —
1.02 2.00 1.70 1.49 1.39 1.30 — — — —
1.05 2.50 2.08 1.74 1.60 1.45 — — — —
1.10 2.96 2.43 1.98 1.78 1.60 1.50 1.43 1.39 1.36
1.20 3.74 2.98 2.38 2.14 1.89 1.72 1.62 1.56 1.53
1.30 4.27 3.40 2.67 2.38 2.06 1.86 1.73 1.64 1.59
1.50 4.80 3.76 3.00 2.64 2.24 1.99 1.84 1.74 1.67
2.00 — — 3.30 2.90 2.44 2.13 1.95 1.84 1.76
Bending of grooved shaft (values of K)
Torsion of grooved shaft (values of K)
Bending r/d
D/d 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
1.05 2.33 2.04 1.76 1.60 1.50 1.42 1.36
1.10 2.52 2.19 1.89 1.69 1.56 1.46 1.39
1.20 2.75 2.36 1.98 1.75 1.60 1.49 1.41
Bending r/d
D/d 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
1.30 2.96 2.52 2.02 1.78 1.62 1.51 1.42
1.50 — 2.60 2.07 1.81 1.64 1.53 1.43
2.00 — 2.67 2.10 1.83 1.67 1.55 1.45
Torsion r/d
D/d 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30
1.05 2.01 1.80 1.65 1.52 1.38 1.30 1.25 1.20
1.10 2.20 1.95 1.81 1.63 1.45 1.35 1.29 1.22
1.20 2.43 2.12 1.94 1.72 1.51 1.39 1.32 1.24
1.30 2.58 2.20 2.00 1.76 1.54 1.41 1.33 1.24
1.50 2.69 2.25 2.03 1.79 1.56 1.42 1.34 1.25
2.00 2.80 2.30 2.05 1.80 1.57 1.43 1.34 1.25
Bending of stepped shaft (values of K)
r/d
D/d 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
1.01 1.65 1.44 1.36 1.32 1.29 1.25 1.24 — — —
1.02 1.96 1.64 1.54 1.46 1.41 1.34 1.32 — — —
1.05 2.41 2.04 1.84 1.73 1.65 1.52 1.48 — — —
r/d
D/d 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
1.10 2.85 2.34 2.08 1.94 1.84 1.66 1.60 — — —
1.20 3.40 2.62 2.32 2.14 2.00 1.75 1.65 1.50 1.42 1.30
1.50 3.73 2.90 2.52 2.30 2.13 1.84 1.72 1.54 1.43 1.35
2.00 – – 2.70 2.42 2.25 1.92 1.78 1.58 1.46 1.36
3.00 – – – 2.60 2.42 2.04 1.88 1.61 1.48 1.38
Torsion of stepped shaft (values of K)
r/d
D/d 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30
1.05 1.60 1.48 1.33 1.25 1.20 1.16 1.13 1.09
1.10 1.75 1.60 1.44 1.35 1.28 1.21 1.17 1.12
1.20 1.85 1.72 1.59 1.43 1.33 1.25 1.19 1.14
1.30 — 1.78 1.59 1.47 1.36 1.27 1.21 1.14
1.50 — — — 1.50 1.39 1.28 1.22 1.15
1.75 — — — 1.51 1.40 1.29 1.24 1.16
2.00 — — — — 1.41 1.31 1.24 1.16
2.50 – – – – 1.42 1.31 1.25 1.16
Welds
Reinforced butt weld, K = 1.2
Toe of transverse fillet weld, K = 1.5
End of parallel fillet weld, K = 2.7
Tee butt joint sharp corner, K = 2.0
Typical stress concentration factors for various features
Component K
Keyways 1.36-2.0
Gear teeth 1.5-2.2
Screw threads 2.2-3.8
Fatigue and Fracture
Qiang Bai, Yong Bai, in Subsea Pipeline Design, Analysis, and Installation, 2014
Stress Concentration Factors

Stress concentration factors (SCFs) at girth welds arise from geometrical
misalignments when the pipes are fitted together. The combined effect of these
misalignments induces a local secondary bending stress that augments the
otherwise plain nominal stress in the pipe section, as the nominal bending
moment and axial forces are transferred across the weld. Figure 12.7 shows the
types of misalignment and distortion at girth welds of pipe. The SCFs can be
obtained by direct FE analysis of the joint, by direct measurement with strain
gauges, or by formulas obtained from parametric studies.
Figure 12.7. Types of misalignment and distortion.
The SCF induced by the local axial misalignment, e, can be estimated by the
method of Connelly and Zettlemoyer [8]:
[12.4]
In this formula, the SCF is the maximum surface stress of the thinner pipe divided
by the cross-sectional area of the thinner pipe where the axial and local bending
stresses are additive. The formula represents a mean fit to data points generated
via FE analyses of mismatched pipes. The location where the maximum stress
occurs is not necessarily the inner surface of the pipe. The SCF may be slightly
conservative when fatigue failures initiate from the root pass of the weld. For
design, the SCF needs to be adjusted to reflect the difference between the nominal
thickness used in the pipeline or riser response analysis and the actual thin wall at
which the SCF occurs.
The local misalignment that determines the SCF at a girth weld can be based on
dimensional tolerances that vary with the size and manufacturing process of the
pipe. Referring to Figure 12.8, the local misalignment, e, can generally be
expressed as a function of the local out of roundness, OOR, and the wall
thicknesses of the matching pipes, tthick and tthin, as follows:
Figure 12.8. Local wall thickness mismatch conditions.
[12.5]
For the purpose of design, the maximum eccentricity, emax, can be obtained by
assuming the worst possible mismatch as determined from the thickness
tolerances and OOR:
[12.6]
in which
[12.7]
and
and α and β to the percentages above and below the nominal thickness,
respectively.
For weld grooves that are not symmetrical in shape, a stress concentration for the
weld root due to maximum allowable eccentricity should be included. The stress
concentration factor can be assessed based on the following expression [2]:
[12.8]
where the notations are shown in Figure 12.9. This stress concentration factor can
also be used for fatigue assessments of the weld toes, refer also to Table 12.1. The
nominal stress on the outside of the pipe should be used for fatigue assessment of
the outside, and the nominal stress on the inside of the pipe should be used for
fatigue assessment of the inside.
Figure 12.9. Dimensions of a welding cross section.
For welded pipes, ovality normally governs the resulting eccentricity. Therefore, the
effect of tolerances can simply be added linearly. For seamless pipes, it is realized
that the thickness tolerance contributes by a similar magnitude to the resulting
eccentricity. A resulting tolerance to be used for calculation of the stress
concentration factor using the preceding equation with δm = δTot can be obtained
as
[12.9]
where
δthickness = (tmax – tmin)/2
δovality = Dmax – Dmin, if the pipes are supported such that they are flush outside
at one point (no pipe centralizing)
δovality = (Dmax – Dmin)/2, if the pipes are centralized during construction
δovality = (Dmax – Dmin)/4, if the pipes are centralized during construction and
rotated until a good fit around the circumference is achieved
Notch stress approach for seam-welded joints

D. Radaj, ... W. Fricke, in Fatigue Assessment of Welded Joints by Local Approaches
(Second Edition), 2006
Butt weld joints (Lehrke)

The stress concentration factors determined by Lehrke248 refer to the toe notch of
double-V butt welds with full penetration and to the root notch of these welds with
partial penetration, both welds under tension loading. The stress concentration
factor at the weld toe, Kt1, is derived on the basis of the notch stress intensity
factors of V-shaped sharp notches supplemented by the notch stress solution for
hyperbolic notches according to Neuber.252,253252253 The stress concentration
factor at the weld root, Kt2, is derived proceeding from the stress intensity factor of
an internal crack in a plate of finite width supplemented by the blunt crack tip
extension according to Tada et al.:628
(4.18)
(4.19)
where θ is the weld toe angle, m is an exponent dependent on θ, ρ is the notch

radius, t is the plate thickness, g is the root face length and w is the reinforcement
width between the weld toes.
The stress concentration factors according to eqs. (4.18) and (4.19) are compared
with boundary element results in Fig. 4.18 and Fig. 4.19. The accuracy of the
formulae seems to be better than 5% which is remarkably high compared with the
other approximation formulae, most of which have a more complex structure. The
stress concentration factors at the weld toe of fully penetrated butt welds calculated
according to different authors in two representative parameter combinations have
been compared by Lehrke,248 Fig. 4.20. The degree of correspondence is
satisfactory, but larger deviations were found by Petitpas et al.388 in comparison to
finite element analysis results.
Fig. 4.18. Notch stress concentration factor at weld toe of tensile loaded butt weld
dependent on notch radius related to plate thickness for different weld toe angles;
after Lehrke.248
Fig. 4.19. Notch stress concentration factor at weld root of tensile loaded butt weld
dependent on notch radius related to plate thickness for different root face length
to plate thickness ratios; after Lehrke.248
Fig. 4.20. Comparison of notch stress concentration factors at the weld toe of butt
welds calculated according to the approximation formulae of various authors; after
Lehrke.248
Contact Stress, Residual Stress and Stress

Concentrations
E.J. Hearn PhD; BSc(Eng) Hons; CEng; FIMechE; FIProdE; FIDiagE, in Mechanics
of Materials 2 (Third Edition), 1997
10.3.8 Use of stress concentration factors with yield criteria

Whilst stress concentration factors are defined in terms of the maximum individual
stress at the stress raiser it could be argued that, since stress conditions there are
normally biaxial, it would be more appropriate to express them in terms of some
"equivalent stress" employing one of the yield criteria introduced in Chapter 15 †
Since the maximum shear strain energy (distortion energy) theory of Von Mises is
usually considered to be the most applicable to both static and dynamic conditions
in ductile materials then, for a biaxial state the Von Mises equivalent stress can be
defined as:
(10.36)
and, since there is always a direct relationship between σ1 and σ2 within the elastic
range for biaxial states (i.e. σ1 = kσ2) then
Then the stress concentration factor expressed in terms of this equivalent stress
will be
(10.37)
Except for the special case of equal bi-axial stress conditions when σ1 = σ2 and
K = 1 the value of Ke is always less than Kt.
A full treatment of the design procedures to be adopted for both ductile and brittle
materials incorporating both yield criteria (Von Mises and Mohr) and stress
concentration factors is carried out by Peterson(57) with consideration of static,
alternating and combined static and alternating stress conditions.
Offshore Structure Platform Design

Mohamed A. El-Reedy Ph.D., in Offshore Structures, 2012
Stress Concentration Factors

The stress concentration factor (SCF) differs from one joint geometry to another. It
is known that the applied loads on tubular joints cause stresses at certain points
along the intersection weld to be many times the nominal stress acting in the
members. The SCF is a multiplier applied to the nominal stress to reach the peak
or maximum stress at the hot spot.
The hot spot is the location in the tubular joint where the maximum applied tensile
stress occurs. To do a fatigue analysis of certain selected tubular joints in an
offshore structure, the stress history of the hot spots in those joints must first be
determined. Three basic types of stress contribute to the development of a hot
spot. Primary stresses are caused by axial forces and moments resulting from the
combined truss and frame action of the jacket. As shown for the in-plane tubular
joint in Figure 3.38, hot spots in locations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are most affected by axial
forces and in-plane bending moments, while locations 2 and 5 are most affected by
the axial forces and circumferential moments in braces.
Figure 3.38. Hot spots at in-plane tubular joint.
Secondary stresses are caused by structural details of the connection, such as poor
joint geometry, poor fit-up, local variation within the joint due to rigid
reinforcement or restraint of the braces by circumferential weld, and these
secondary stresses will amplify the primary stresses. Secondary stresses are also
caused by metallurgical factors, such as faulty welding practice, insufficient weld
penetration, heavy beading, weld porosity or varying cooling rates. These stresses
mainly affect location 1, but their effect is also significant at locations 3, 4 and 6.
Because metallurgical factors are essential in fatigue stresses on tubular joints, the
quality control (QC) procedure for constructing this connection should be given
more attention, as is described in Chapter 5.
The most fatigue-sensitive areas in offshore platforms are the welds at tubular
joints, because of the high local stress concentrations. Fatigue lives at these
locations should be estimated by evaluating the hot-spot stress range (HSSR) and
using it as input into the appropriate S-N curve.
SCFs may be derived from finite element (FE) analyses, model tests or empirical
equations based on such methods. When deriving SCFs using FE analysis, it is
recommended to use volume (brick and thick shell) elements to represent the weld
region and adjoining shell, as opposed to thin shell elements. In such models, the
SCFs may be derived by extrapolating stress components to the relevant weld toes
and combining them to obtain the maximum principal stress and, hence, the SCF.
The extrapolation direction should be normal to the weld toes.
According to Healy and Buitrago (1994) and Niemi et al. (1995), if thin shell
elements are used, the results should be interpreted carefully, since no single
method is guaranteed to provide consistently accurate stresses.
Extrapolation to the mid-surface intersection generally overpredicts SCFs, but not
consistently, whereas truncation at the notional weld toes would generally
underpredict SCFs. In place of extrapolation, it is possible to use directly the nodal
average stresses at the mid-surface intersection. This will generally overpredict
stresses, especially on the brace side.
This last method is expected to be more sensitive to the local mesh size than the
extrapolation methods.
The general definition for stress concentration factor for any tubular joint
configuration and each type of brace loading is presented by the following formula:
The nominal brace stress range should be based on the section properties of the
brace-end under consideration, taking due account of the brace-stub, or a flared
member end, if present. Similarly, the SCF evaluation should be based on the same
section dimensions. HSSR is the hot spot stress range.
The nominal cyclic stress affecting the chord may also influence the HSSR and
should be considered. The SCF should include all stress-raising effects associated
with the joint geometry and type of loading, except the local microscopic weld
notch effect, which is included in the S-N curve. SCFs may be derived from FE
analyses, model tests or empirical equations based on such methods. In general,
the SCFs depend on the type of brace cyclic loading if the axial load applied to the
brace is in-plane bending or out-of plane bending, the joint type and details of the
geometry. The SCF varies around the joint, even for a single type of brace loading.
When combining the contributions from the various loading modes, phase
differences between them should be accounted for, with the design HSSR at each
location being the range of hot-spot stress resulting from the point-in-time
contribution of all loading components.
In general, for all welded tubular joints under all three types of loading, a
minimum value of SCF equal to 1.5 should be used.
For unstiffened welded tubular joints, SCFs should be evaluated using the
Efthymiou equations, as will be discussed later in thickness effect on the SCF.
The linearly extrapolated hot-spot stress from Efthymiou may be adjusted to
account for the actual weld toe position, where this systematically differs from the
assumed AWS basic profiles.
The SCF applies also to internally ring-stiffened joints, including the stresses in the
stiffeners and the stiffener-to-chord weld. Noting that special consideration should
be given to these locations, SCFs for internally ring-stiffened joints can be
determined by applying the Lloyd's reduction factors based on the Lloyd's Report
(1988) to the SCFs for the equivalent unstiffened joint. For ring-stiffened joints
analyzed by such means, the minimum SCF for the brace side under axial or OPB
loading should be taken as 2.0.
Offshore structures design

Mohamed A. El-Reedy Ph.D., in Marine Structural Design Calculations, 2015
4.7.1 Stress concentration factors

The stress concentration factor is different from one joint geometry to another. It is
known that the applied loads on tubular joints cause stresses at certain points
along the intersection weld to be many times the nominal stress acting in the
members. The stress concentration factor (SCF) is as multiplier applied to the
nominal stress to reach the peak or maximum stress at the hot spot location.
The hot spot is the location in the tubular joint where the maximum applied tensile
stress occurs. To do a fatigue analysis of a certain selected tubular joints in an
offshore structure, the stress history of the hot spots in those joints must first be
determined; three basic stress types contribute to the development of hot spots,
which are as follows:
Primary stresses are caused by axial forces and moments resulting from the
combined truss and frame action of the jacket. As shown in the in-plan tubular
joint hot spot in Figure 4.35, the location of hotspots in locations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6
are most effected by axial forces and in-plane bending moments where regions 2
and 5 are most affected by the axial forces and circumferential moments in braces.
Figure 4.35. Hot spots of an in-plane tubular joint.
The secondary stresses have two causes. Theys may be due to the structure detail of
the connection. such as poor joint geometry, poor fit-up, local variation within the
joint due to rigid reinforcement. or the braces are restrained by a circumferential
weld; these secondary stresses amplify the primary stresses. The second cause of
secondary stresses are by the metallurgical factors that results from faulty welding
practice, insufficient weld penetration, heavy beading, weld porosity, or varying
cooling rates. These stresses mainly affect location, and their effect is significant at
locations 3, 4, and 6.
As the metallurgical effect is essential in fatigue stresses on the tubular joint so the
quality control for constructing this connection should receive more attention, as is
describe in Chapter 5.
The most fatigue sensitive areas in offshore platforms are the welds at tubular
joints because of high local stress concentrations. Shortened life due to fatigue at
these locations is estimated by evaluating the hot spot stress range (HSSR) and
using it as input into the appropriate S-N curve.
SCFs may be derived from finite element (FE) analyses, model tests, or empirical
equations based on such methods. When deriving SCFs using FE analysis, it is
recommended to use volume (brick and thick shell) elements to represent the weld
region and adjoining shell, as opposed to thin shell elements. In such models the
SCFs may be derived by extrapolating stress components to the relevant weld toes
and combining these to obtain the maximum principal stress and, hence, the SCF.
The extrapolation direction should be normal to the weld toes.
According to Healy and Buitrago (1994) and Neimi et al. (1995), if thin shell
elements are used, the results should be interpreted carefully, since no single
method is guaranteed to provide consistently accurate stresses.
Extrapolation to the midsurface intersection generally overpredicts SCFs but not
consistently, whereas truncation at the notional weld toes generally underpredicts
SCFs. In place of extrapolation, it is possible to directly use the nodal average
stresses at the midsurface intersection. This generally overpredict stresses,
especially on the brace side. This last method is expected to be more sensitive to
the local mesh size than the extrapolation methods.
For each tubular joint configuration and each type of brace loading, the SCF is
defined as
SCF=HSSR/nominal brace stress range
The nominal brace stress range should be based on the section properties of the
brace-end under consideration, taking due account of the brace stub or a flared
member end, if present. Likewise, the SCF evaluation should be based on the same
section dimensions.
Nominal cyclic stress in the chord may also influence the HSSR and should be
considered. The SCF should include all stress-raising effects associated with the
joint geometry and type of loading, except the local (microscopic) weld notch effect,
which is included in the S-N curve. SCFs may be derived from finite element
analyses, model tests, or empirical equations based on such methods. In general.
the SCFs depend on the type of brace cyclic loading (i.e., brace axial load, in-plane
bending, out-of plane bending), the joint type, and details of the geometry. The
SCF varies around the joint, even for a single type of brace loading.
When combining the contributions from the various loading modes, phase
differences between them should be accounted for, with the design HSSR at each
location being the range of hot-spot stress resulting from the point-in-time
contribution of all loading components.
In general, for all welded tubular joints under all three types of loading, a
minimum value of SCF equal to 1.5 should be used.
For unstiffened welded tubular joints, SCFs should be evaluated using the
Efthymiou equations, as will be discussed later in thickness effect on the SCF.
The linearly extrapolated hot-spot stress from Efthymiou may be adjusted to
account for the actual weld toe position, where this systematically differs from the
assumed AWS basic profiles.
The SCF also applies to internally ring-stiffened joints, including the stresses in the
stiffeners and the stiffener-to-chord weld. Noting that special consideration should
be given to these locations, SCFs for internally ring-stiffened joints can be
determined by applying the Lloyd’s reduction factors based on the Lloyd’s Report
(1988) to the SCFs for the equivalent unstiffened joint. For ring-stiffened joints
analyzed by such means, the minimum SCF for the brace side under axial or OPB
loading should be taken as 2.0.
4.7.1.1 SCFs in grouted joints
The grouting joints are usually used in repairing or strengthen the platform.
Grouting tends to reduce the SCF of the joint, since the grout reduces the chord
deformations. In general, the larger is the ungrouted SCF, the greater the
reduction in SCF with grouting. Hence, the reductions are typically greater for X
and T joints than for Y and K joints. More discussion about the effect of grouting in
the strengthen method is presented in Chapter 7.
4.7.1.2 SCFs in cast nodes
For cast joints, the SCF is derived from the maximum principal stress at any point
on the surface of the casting (including the inside surface) divided by the nominal
brace stress outside the casting. The SCFs for castings are not extrapolated values
but are based on directly measured or calculated values at any given point, using
an analysis that is sufficiently detailed to pick up the local notch effects of fillet radii
and so forth. Consideration should also be given to the brace-to casting girth weld,
which can be the most critical location for fatigue.
Multi-objective optimisation of profile modifications in

spur and helical gears – an analytical approach
J. Bruyère, P. Velex, in International Gear Conference 2014: 26th–28th August
2014, Lyon, 2014
2.5 Root stress

Bending stress at the root of the teeth is another crucial design parameter which,
according to ISO 6336, can be approximated by:
[10]
with YS, stress concentration factor considered as independent of the load position
on the tooth flank and YF, shape factor depending on the load position (26).
For one given gear geometry, a local form associated with every gear slice can be
derived as for contact stress. Using the results of Dufailly (27) based on ISO 6336
formulae, the following dimensionless expression of the maximum root stress can
be obtained:
[11]
with
is the dimensionless position of the pitch point in the base plane and
.Angle ψ is defined in ISO6336-3 and used in the expression
of the critical section and parameter αM is the angle between the tangent profile
and the axis of symmetry of the tooth for the equivalent spur gear.
Figure 4 shows the corresponding evolutions of the dimensionless maximum root
stress when following a pinion tooth from engagement to recess.
Figure 4. Maximum root stress distribution on one pinion tooth from engagement
to recess (conventionally, engagement is near the pinion root).
Metal Matrix Composites - Local Approach

G.Z. Voyiadjis, P.I. Kattan, in Advances in Damage Mechanics: Metals and Metal
Matrix Composites, 1999
8.2 Stress and Strain Concentration Factors

The matrix and fiber stress concentration factors and , respectively, are
defined as fourth-rank tensors in the fictitious effective configurations as follows:
(8.5a)
(8.5b)
The plastic matrix stress concentration factor is replaced by the elastic matrix
stress concentration factor when elastic loading or unloading takes place. It
should be noted that the elastic tensors and depend only on the
undamaged coordinates, while the plastic tensor depends on both the
undamaged coordinates and the effective strain tensor. Since the above
concentration factors are defined in the effective configurations, they are void of
any damage effects and therefore can be determined using several available
methods. The two simplest methods are the Voigt model and the VFD (Vanishing
Fiber Diameter) model. The reader is referred to the recent work of Dvorak and
Bahei-El-Din [70] for more details concerning these two assumptions. However, it
should be noted that the proposed model is not restricted to these simple field
theories. Other more sophisticated theories could be used in conjunction with the
proposed model to determine the stress and strain concentration factors.
Substituting equations (8.5) (using elastic concentration factors) into equation (8.1)
and simplifying, one obtains the following constraint relation:
(8.6)
It is clear that once one of the phase (matrix or fibers) stress concentration factors
is determined, one can use equation (8.6) to find the other one.
Next, one uses the relations in equations (8.5) to derive similar relations in the
configurations CM, CF and C. The corresponding relations take the following form:
(8.7a)
(8.7b)
Equations (8.7) represent the current local-overall relations for the stresses in the
damaged composite system. The concentration factors BM and BFE are fourth-rank
tensors that include the local effects of damage. Equations (8.7) characterize the
local nature of the approach adopted in this chapter in the sense that BM contains
the matrix damage effects, while BFE contains fiber damage effects. Once suitable
local damage tensors are defined (as will be seen in the next section), one can
consistently derive the appropriate relations between the undamaged factors
and the damaged factors BM and BFE. This process will be carried out in
the next section where damage tensors are introduced. As before, the tensor BM
should be replaced by its elastic counterpart BME when unloading or elastic loading
takes place.
Since equation (8.1) is valid in the configurations CM, CF and C when barred
stresses are replaced by unbarred stresses, it can be shown that using equations
(8.7), the damaged stress concentration factors satisfy a constraint equation similar
to equation (8.6), namely:
(8.8)
where cM and cF are the phase volume fractions of the damaged composite system
defined in a similar way as in equations (8.2), with cM + cF = 1.
This section is concluded with a similar but brief discussion of the matrix and fiber
strain concentration factors ĀM and ĀFE, respectively. These two factors are fourth-
rank tensors defined in the fictitious (undamaged) configurations as follows:
(8.9a)
(8.9b)
The remarks discussed earlier about the stress concentration factors apply also to
the strain concentration factors, where one can also show that:
(8.10)
Similarly, one can define the damaged strain concentration factors AM and AFE as
fourth-rank tensors in the damaged configurations as follows:
(8.11a)
(8.11b)
The relation between the undamaged strain concentration factors ĀM, ĀFE and their
damaged counterparts AM, AFE will be derived in the next section using local
damage tensors. Finally, one can easily show that:
(8.12)
Equation (8.12) is a constraint equation similar to equation (8.10), where one can

determine one of the phase concentration factors once the other one is known. In
the next section, explicit relations will be derived between the undamaged and
damaged concentration factors for stresses and strains.
Application of ANSYS to stress analysis

Tadeusz Stolarski, ... Shigeka Yoshimoto, in Engineering Analysis with ANSYS
Software (Second Edition), 2018
3.6.6 Problems to solve

Problem 3.19
Calculate the stress concentration factor at a foot of the circumferential rounded
fillet in a stepped circular cylindrical bar subjected to uniform tensile stress σ0 on
the right-end face of the bar. The bar has the same geometry and mechanical
properties as described in Section 3.6.2 and shown in Fig. 3.128, and is rigidly
clamped to the rigid wall at the other end. Note that the large displacement option
is not necessary to be imposed in this case.
Answer: The tensile stress concentration factor is obtained as α = σmax/σ0 ≈ 1.78 by
the tensile stress concentration vs radius of curvature diagram [13].
Problem 3.20
Calculate the stress concentration factor at a foot of the circumferential rounded
fillet in a stepped circular cylindrical bar subjected to point load P perpendicular to
the longitudinal axis of the bar at the periphery of the right-end face of the bar. The
bar has the same geometry and mechanical properties as described in Section 3.6.2
and shown in Fig. 3.128, and is rigidly clamped to the rigid wall at the other end.
Note that the large displacement option is not necessary to be imposed in this
case, either.
Answer: The bending stress concentration factor is obtained as α = σmax/σ0 ≈ 1.55
where σ0 = 32Pl2/(πd3) by the bending stress concentration vs radius of curvature
diagram [13].
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors.

ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.

Stress Concentration Factor - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stress Concentration Factor - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/23/2020 Stress Concentration Factor - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Fracture processes of aerospace materials

18.3.2 Stress concentration factors for anisotropic (composite)

Table 18.1. Stress concentration factors for a 24-ply carbon–epoxy panel

Number of 0° plies Number of ± 45° plies Stress concentration factor Kt

1.3.4 Stress concentration factors

Plate with hole at centre of width

d/w 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.55

K 3.00 3.03 3.14 3.36 3.74 4.32 4.70

Note: In this case the area of maximum cross-section is used.

Semi-inﬁnite plate with hole near edge

Bending of stepped ﬂat bar with ﬁllets (values of K)

D/d 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30

1.01 1.64 1.44 1.32 1.28 1.24 — — —

1.02 1.94 1.66 1.46 1.38 1.32 — — —

1.05 2.42 2.04 1.74 1.60 1.48 1.40 1.34 1.29

1.10 2.80 2.34 1.96 1.78 1.60 1.49 1.40 1.31

1.20 3.30 2.68 2.21 1.96 1.70 1.55 1.44 1.34

1.50 3.80 2.98 2.38 2.08 1.78 1.59 1.48 1.36

2.00 — 3.14 2.52 2.20 1.86 1.64 1.51 1.37

3.00 — 3.30 2.68 2.34 1.93 1.67 1.53 1.38

Tension of stepped bar with ﬁllets (values of K)

1.01 1.68 1.48 1.34 1.26 1.20 — — — —

1.02 2.00 1.70 1.49 1.39 1.30 — — — —

1.05 2.50 2.08 1.74 1.60 1.45 — — — —

2.00 — — 3.30 2.90 2.44 2.13 1.95 1.84 1.76

Bending of grooved shaft (values of K)

Torsion of grooved shaft (values of K)

D/d 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

1.05 2.33 2.04 1.76 1.60 1.50 1.42 1.36

1.10 2.52 2.19 1.89 1.69 1.56 1.46 1.39

1.20 2.75 2.36 1.98 1.75 1.60 1.49 1.41

D/d 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

1.30 2.96 2.52 2.02 1.78 1.62 1.51 1.42

1.50 — 2.60 2.07 1.81 1.64 1.53 1.43

2.00 — 2.67 2.10 1.83 1.67 1.55 1.45

D/d 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30

1.05 2.01 1.80 1.65 1.52 1.38 1.30 1.25 1.20

1.10 2.20 1.95 1.81 1.63 1.45 1.35 1.29 1.22

1.20 2.43 2.12 1.94 1.72 1.51 1.39 1.32 1.24

1.30 2.58 2.20 2.00 1.76 1.54 1.41 1.33 1.24

1.50 2.69 2.25 2.03 1.79 1.56 1.42 1.34 1.25

2.00 2.80 2.30 2.05 1.80 1.57 1.43 1.34 1.25

Bending of stepped shaft (values of K)

1.01 1.65 1.44 1.36 1.32 1.29 1.25 1.24 — — —

1.02 1.96 1.64 1.54 1.46 1.41 1.34 1.32 — — —

1.05 2.41 2.04 1.84 1.73 1.65 1.52 1.48 — — —

1.10 2.85 2.34 2.08 1.94 1.84 1.66 1.60 — — —

2.00 – – 2.70 2.42 2.25 1.92 1.78 1.58 1.46 1.36

3.00 – – – 2.60 2.42 2.04 1.88 1.61 1.48 1.38

Torsion of stepped shaft (values of K)

D/d 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30

1.05 1.60 1.48 1.33 1.25 1.20 1.16 1.13 1.09

1.10 1.75 1.60 1.44 1.35 1.28 1.21 1.17 1.12

1.20 1.85 1.72 1.59 1.43 1.33 1.25 1.19 1.14

1.30 — 1.78 1.59 1.47 1.36 1.27 1.21 1.14

1.50 — — — 1.50 1.39 1.28 1.22 1.15

1.75 — — — 1.51 1.40 1.29 1.24 1.16

2.00 — — — — 1.41 1.31 1.24 1.16

2.50 – – – – 1.42 1.31 1.25 1.16

Toe of transverse ﬁllet weld, K = 1.5

End of parallel ﬁllet weld, K = 2.7