Design Criterion of Fatigue

Analysis on Plastic Basis by

Arturs Kalnins
e-mail: ak01@Lehigh.edu
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3085 Code
Norman E. Dowling The paper investigates the current rules for fatigue analysis on plastic basis of the ASME
e-mail: ndowling@vt.edu Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. It addresses the question: When these rules are used for
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State a vessel or component, is it designed with respect to crack initiation or failure? Using
University, available fatigue test data, the question is answered for blunt double-notch plate speci-
Blacksburg, VA mens made of AISI 4340 steel. When the rules are applied to these specimens, it is found
that they are designed with respect to the initiation of a crack of a certain length that
decreases as the strain range increases. The plate specimens are not designed with respect
to failure. It is concluded that for geometries that exhibit a strain range gradient away
from the surface, the number of cycles allowed by the current rules includes the initiation
phase but not the propagation phase of a fatigue crack. If this result is unsatisfactory, new
rules have to be written. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1811105兴

1 Introduction on the appropriate ASME standard curve. The number of cycles

This paper examines the design criterion for fatigue analysis on
plastic basis that is specified in Sections III and VIII of the ASME
B&PV Code 关1兴 共henceforth the Code兲. 共These rules provide an
alternative to fatigue analysis on elastic basis, which is not con-
sidered in the paper.兲
A design criterion1 is defined as the condition that is regarded
as unacceptable when a vessel or component is subjected to the
applied loading. It is the condition with respect to which the de-
sign is performed. In design by analysis for static loading, the
design criterion is specified first. Then the loading at which this
criterion 共unacceptable condition兲 is reached is calculated, and a
design factor is applied to that loading to obtain the allowable
loading for static operation.
In fatigue analysis, at least that given by the Code rules, the
procedure is different. While the rules stipulate how a fatigue
analysis is to proceed, the design criterion is not specified 共or
otherwise known兲 in advance. According to Section VIII, Appen-
dix 4, 4-136.2共c兲, the maximum principal strain range is calcu-
lated and multiplied by one-half of the modulus of elasticity. This
product is compared with the stresses listed on Code’s design
fatigue curve and the number of allowed cycles read off the curve.
The question is: What is the condition of the vessel or component
that is regarded as unacceptable by using the Code rules? This is
the central point of the paper.
The question can be stated differently. Code’s design fatigue
curves for various classes of materials have been obtained from
the best-fit curves through certain test data 共Langer 关2兴兲.2 These
are called here the ASME standard curves. Equations of these
curves are known for some materials 共ASME Criteria Document
关3兴兲. The unacceptable condition of the design criterion is revealed
by the condition of the vessel or component at the number of
cycles obtained by comparing the calculated strain range with that
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received by the PVP
Division April 8, 2003; revision received August 27, 2004. Associate Editor: C. E.
Jaske.
1
The term ‘‘failure criterion’’ is sometimes used to describe the same idea. It is not
used here because the whole point of the paper is to show that this criterion is not
failure but the initiation of a crack of a certain size.
2
For example, the design fatigue curve in Section VIII-Div. 2, Appendix 5, Fig.
5-110.1, is obtained by applying certain factors to the best-fit curve for carbon and
some alloy steels, and adjusting for mean stress.
obtained from this curve will be called here the design-criterion
cycles. So, the question now is: What is the condition of the vessel
or component after the design-criterion cycles have been applied?
More specifically, is it crack initiation or failure?
2 Test Program
The investigation is based on fatigue test data for smooth speci-
mens and blunt, double-notch plate specimens. Samples are
shown in Fig. 1
The results of these tests are shown in Figures 10.8 and 14.9 of
Dowling 关4兴. These data were taken at Westinghouse Research
and Development Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the late
1970s, under the direction of Dowling. The significance of these
data is that they report the number of cycles that lead to certain
crack lengths that are produced in both the smooth and notched
specimens.
These crack lengths were measured by making impressions
共casts兲 of the metal surface with cellulose acetate replicating tape
that had been temporarily softened in acetone. The resulting rep-
licas were then examined using an optical microscope at magni-
fications ranging from 50⫻ to 500⫻, and crack lengths were
measured from photographs taken through the microscope. This
method of following crack initiation and growth is described
in detail in 关5兴. The particular data of interest were previously
presented and discussed in 关6兴 and 关7兴. Details of the quenched
and tempered AISI 4340 steel material tested are given in 关8兴,
along with photographs of the smooth and notched test specimen
geometries.
3 Approach
The plan is the following. For specified nominal stress ranges,
the test data provide the number of cycles at which two conditions
are observed in both the smooth and the notched specimens: 共1兲 a
crack of tip-to-tip length of 0.5 mm 共0.02 inches兲, and 共2兲 failure.
For the smooth specimens, the strain range for a given stress range
is included in the test data. For the notched specimens, the local
strain range at the notch root is calculated by plastic FEA for a
given nominal stress range. Using the ASME standard curve, the
design-criterion cycles are determined for each strain range. Com-
parison of the design-criterion cycles with the cycles that indicate

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2004 by ASME NOVEMBER 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 461

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Fig. 1 Smooth and blunt notch specimens
the two conditions 共0.5 mm crack and failure兲 observed in the
tests leads to conclusions regarding the design criterion with re-
spect to which the design has been performed.
4 Code Rules
Section III, NB-3228.4 and Section VIII-Div. 2, Appendix 4,
4-136.2 address shakedown, ratcheting, and fatigue analysis on
plastic basis. In particular, the rules of paragraph 共c兲 state that:
‘‘In evaluating stresses for comparison with fatigue allowables,
the numerically maximum principal total strain range shall be
multiplied by one-half the modulus of elasticity of the material
共Section II, Part D, Subpart 2, Tables TM兲 at the mean value of the
temperature of the cycle.’’
This citation is from 2001 Section III, but the corresponding
paragraph in Section VIII conveys essentially the same message.
They both refer to the ‘‘fatigue allowables’’ that are given in de-
sign fatigue curves shown in Section III, Division 1, Appendices,
Appendix I, and Section VIII-Div. 2, Appendix 5, 5-110. The or-
dinates of these curves list a fatigue stress parameter, S a , and the
abscissas are the allowable cycles.
The fatigue specimen test data that provide the basis of Code’s
design fatigue curves are described in the ASME Criteria Docu-
ment 关3兴 and discussed in more detail by Langer 关2兴 and Tavern-
elli and Coffin 关9兴. The best fit through the data is given by the
equation
S a⫽
E
4 冑N
ln 冉 冊
100
100⫺A
⫹B (1)
E is the modulus of elasticity, N the number of cycles to failure,
and S a the cycled strain amplitude times E. For a certain class of
materials, which includes carbon steels, E⫽206,900 MPa 共30,000
ksi兲, A⫽68.5, and B⫽149.2 MPa 共21.65 ksi兲. Since the Code
462 Õ Vol. 126, NOVEMBER 2004
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 2 Comparison of ASME Standard curve with fatigue
curves for 4340 smooth specimens
rules refer to strain range, the curve for carbon steels will be
plotted with the ordinate of total strain range, which equals
2S a /E. This curve is shown in Fig. 2, marked ‘‘ASME Std.’’ No
factors or mean stress adjustments have been applied to this curve.
The question is whether this ASME standard curve is appropri-
ate for the material used in the test program described in the
Introduction. To answer that question, Fig. 2 also includes a curve,
marked ‘‘4340 fail,’’ that shows the strain range versus cycles-to-
failure data for 6.4 mm 共0.25 inch兲 diameter, round fatigue speci-
mens, made of the same heat of AISI 4340 steel as the double-
notch plate specimens. It is concluded that the test data for this
material fit reasonably well within the class of materials of the
ASME standard curve. Therefore, the ASME standard curve will
be used to design the double-notch plate specimen by Code rules,
which is considered in section 6 of this paper.
In addition to the cycles to failure, the test data described in
section 0 include also the number of cycles at which a crack of 0.5
mm was observed in the 6.4 mm diameter round specimens at a
specified strain range. These numbers of cycles are shown by
large open-square markers in Fig. 2 and assigned the name ‘‘4340
0.5 mm’’ in the legend. The significance of these data points will
be discussed in section 8 below.
5 Notched Specimen Test Data
A rough 共not to scale兲 sketch of the basic shape of a double-
notch plate specimen is shown in Fig. 3. The material of all the
test data reported in this paper is taken from the same heat of AISI
4340 steel, with yield strength of 646 MPa 共93.7 ksi兲, ultimate
strength of 786 MPa 共114 ksi兲, reduction in area 68%, and modu-
lus of elasticity of 207,000 MPa 共30,000 ksi兲.
The specimen gross 共notches not subtracted兲 width is 25.4 mm
共1 inch兲, notch radius and depth is 2.54 mm 共0.10 inch兲, and
thickness is 6.35 mm 共0.25 inch兲. S is the applied nominal stress
calculated from load divided by the gross area of 161.3 mm2
(0.25 in2 ). For elastic stress at the notch root, earlier finite ele-
ment analysis by W. K. Wilson, reported in 关10兴, indicates a stress
concentration factor of 3.03 based on gross area stress. This cor-
responds to a stress concentration factor of 2.43 with respect to
S net , which is the nominal stress from the net ligament section
through the notches, that is, from the net area of 129.0 mm2
(0.20 in2 ).
In the tests, the cycling is performed by applying loads of a
fixed amplitude to the grips that hold the round threaded ends of
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 3 Double-notch specimen
the notched specimen. The notched specimen data are given in
Table 1, where the heading ‘‘N failure’’ is for the number of cycles
to failure, ‘‘N 0.5 mm’’ for the number of cycles at which a sur-
face crack with a tip-to-tip length of 0.5 mm 共0.02 inches兲 is
detected in the notch root, and ‘‘S-Range’’ is the nominal stress
range to which the specimen is subjected, calculated from the load
range and gross area of 161.3 mm2 (0.25 in2 ). This is the key data
that will be used in achieving the objective of the paper.
6 FEA for Notched Specimens
In order to make the FEA model a better fit to what was actu-
ally tested, the model configured in Fig. 3 was changed to that
shown in Fig. 4. Plastic FEA is used to calculate the strain range
cycled at the notch root of the notched specimen. In the actual
specimen that was tested, the flat plate section, which is shown in
Fig. 1, transitions with large fillet radii to 25.4 mm 共1 inch兲 diam-
eter threaded ends for gripping.
In Fig. 4, the model of the bottom piece consists of 6.35 mm
共0.25 inch兲 thick quadratic plane stress elements 共CPS8兲 of the
Abaqus FE program 关11兴. The top piece is made stiffer by in-
creased thickness. Its role is to prevent rotation of the top surface
of the plate, which in the actual test setup is prevented by the
rather massive fillet radii and round grip ends of the specimen.
The difference between the model of Fig. 3 and that of Fig. 4 is
that the latter exhibits smaller stress and strain concentrations at
the notch, which should be closer to those in the test specimen.
For example, for the model of Fig. 3, the elastic stress concentra-
tion factor that is obtained by FEA is 3.1 with respect to the gross
section nominal stress, while this quantity for the model of Fig. 4
is only 2.7.
7 Strain Range by Twice-Yield Approach
The strain range cycled at the notch root is calculated by
Abaqus 关11兴 for the model and loading shown in Fig. 4. The
method of calculation is based on the proposition that if on the
input file of the finite element program the load is specified as the
load range, and the uniaxial stress-strain curve of the material
model is input as that of the cyclic stress range versus strain range
Table 1 Test data for notched specimen
N failure N 0.5 mm S-Range, MPa
1023
3235
6027
635
1300
2400
882.6
772.2
661.9
19500 6000 551.6
46037 14000 441.3
87950 19000 386.1
225000 100000 331.0
680000 500000 286.8
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 4 FE model used in analysis
curve, then on the output file the stress components are the stress
range components and the strain components are the strain range
components. The latter provide the local strain range that is used
in the local strain approach of fatigue analysis.
Stress analysis on this basis is discussed in 关12兴 and 关13兴, where
comparisons are given with experimental data for cases of simple
bending and a notched member, respectively. As noted in 关13兴,
theoretical support is found in the work of Z. Mroz 关14,15兴. More
recently, Kalnins 关16兴 made the case in favor of this proposition
and called it the twice-yield approach. The advantage of this ap-
proach over a cycle-by-cycle analysis is significant. The only ma-
terial data needed for the strain range calculation is the cyclic
stress range versus strain range curve. The calculation is per-
formed in one load step, the loads starting from zero up to the load
range. Such an approach for handling cyclic loading is also dis-
cussed in Section 13.6 of 关4兴. Extension to irregular variation of
load with time is also considered there, as well as in 关13兴.
The cyclic stress-strain curve has been determined for the same
heat of 4340 steel from which all the specimens, smooth and
notched, were made. This curve is written in elastic, power-
hardening form 共section 12.2.3 of Dowling 关4兴兲. When re-written
for the cyclic stress range-strain range format, the equations of the
curve are given by
␴ R ⫽E␧ R for ␴ R ⬍2 ␴ 0 (2)
and
冉 冊
␧R n
␴ R ⫽2H for ␴ R ⬎2 ␴ 0 (3)
2
where ␴ R is the stress range, ␧ R the strain range, and ␴ 0 the stress
amplitude at the yield-point of the cyclic curve. The following
parameters produce a reasonable fit to the raw cyclic 共half-life兲
test data up to a strain range of about 0.05: ␴ 0 ⫽394 MPa 共57.15
ksi兲, H⫽1593 MPa 共231 ksi兲, n⫽0.223, and E⫽207,000 MPa
共30,000 ksi兲.
For a material model in the plastic range, Abaqus FE program
关11兴 requires input that consists of pairs of numbers of uniaxial
stress and plastic strain components. This relationship is obtained
from Eq. 共3兲 in the form
␧ plR ⫽2 冉 冊
␴R
2H
1/n
⫺
␴R
E
(4)
where ␧ plR denotes the plastic strain range. Using the parameters
listed above, this relationship is plotted in Fig. 5.
According to the twice-yield approach, FEA is performed in
one load step by specifying the load as that given in each row of
the column ‘‘S-Range’’ in Table 1 and the material curve of Fig. 5,
NOVEMBER 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 463
 Fig. 5 Input data for material model
Fig. 6 ASME standard curve for carbon steels and test data
for notched specimens
which is used in the FEA as if it were for monotonic application.
The calculated principal strain range at the notch root is given in
the column ‘‘E-Range’’ in Table 2. Also shown in the last two
columns of Table 2 are the numbers of cycles obtained from the
test program 共subsection 2兲 for the notched specimens. 共They are For example, for the strain range of 0.0136, the location is such
repeated from Table 1.兲 It is noted that, at nominal stress ranges of that a crack of slightly less than 0.5 mm will be developed at the
286.8 MPa and lower, no plastic strains are produced at the notch notch root. 共The cycles obtained in test are 2400 while those of
root. So, the strain range of 0.0037 is the threshold that separates the Code rules are 2200.兲 Figure 6 also shows that for this strain
cycling with and without plastic action. range the design-criterion cycles of 2200 are far from the 6000
cycles at which failure of the notched specimen was observed in
The calculated strain range (2 nd column of Table 2兲 for the
test.
notched specimens is now plotted in Fig. 6 versus the cycles ob-
It is also seen from Fig. 6 that, for strain ranges between 0.015
tained in test (3 rd and 4 th columns兲 for a specified stress range (1 st and 0.0037 共at 0.0037 cycling is all elastic兲, the Code rules give
column兲, on top of the ASME Standard 共best-fit兲 curve that is design-criterion cycles at which the crack size in the component is
given by equation 共1兲. about 0.5 mm, plus or minus small amounts. 共The ‘‘Notch 0.5
mm’’ curve is close to the ‘‘ASME Std.’’ curve.兲 However, the
8 Discussion ‘‘Notch 0.5 mm’’ curve departs sharply from the ‘‘ASME Std.’’
Figure 6 contains the key results from which the main conclu- curve at the strain range of 0.0136, and for strain ranges greater
sions of this paper are drawn. Each row of Table 2 identifies a than 0.0136, the crack size developed in the notched component at
strain range cycled at the notch root. If a horizontal line were design-criterion cycles is less than 0.5 mm by an unknown
drawn at this strain range in Fig. 6, the intersection of the line amount.
with the ASME Std. curve would identify the design-criterion This observation leads to a more general qualitative conclusion
cycles. For example, a line drawn through the strain range of that the initiated crack size at the design-criterion cycles of the
0.0136 in the third row of Table 2 would give about 2200 design- Code rules decreases as the strain range increases. This is sup-
criterion cycles. ported by the data for 4340 steel and is also consistent with the
Now the question posed in the Introduction can be answered: expected physical result that the crack initiation phase is shorter in
What is the condition of a notched plate specimen after 2200 comparison with the propagation phase for increasing strain
cycles have been applied? ranges.
The answer is provided by the location of the ‘‘ASME Std.’’ When viewed together with Fig. 2, Fig. 6 also shows the effect
curve with respect to that of the ‘‘Notch 0.5 mm’’ curve in Fig. 6. of geometry on the design criterion. The two figures can be re-
The horizontal distance between them provides a rough measure garded as showing the design criteria of two different geometries:
of the crack size that is initiated at the design-criterion cycles, one in which the strain range through the cross section is practi-
which are given by the ‘‘ASME Std.’’ curve. If the point on the cally uniform and another that has a strain range gradient away
‘‘ASME Std.’’ curve lies to the left of the ‘‘Notch 0.5 mm’’ curve, from the surface.
then the initiated crack length is less than 0.5 mm. If it lies to the The example of the former is a 6.4 mm diameter smooth rod
right, the crack length is greater than 0.5 mm. and that of the latter is a double-notch plate. For the rod, Fig. 2
shows the number of cycles at which a 0.5 mm crack is developed
and that at failure. It is seen that the distance between these curves
Table 2 Calculated strain range at notch root is much smaller than that between the corresponding curves for
the plate in Fig. 6.
S-Range E-Range N 0.5 mm N-failure This result leads to the more general conclusion that the design
criterion for a strain range in a geometry that does not have a
882.6 0.044108 635 1023
772.2 0.024089 1300 3235 gradient away from the surface will be closer to failure, while that
661.9 0.013619 2400 6027 for a surface strain range in a geometry that does have a gradient
551.6 0.009761 6000 19500 away from the surface will be farther from failure.
441.3 0.006816 14000 46037 Although only limited data are analyzed here, similar conclu-
386.1 0.005558 19000 87950
331.0 0.004463 100000 225000 sions are expected for other geometries of notched member and
286.8 0.003715 500000 680000 for other materials. Additional work of this type could be under-
taken to obtain confirmation for additional cases. For example,

464 Õ Vol. 126, NOVEMBER 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 similar data are available in 关10兴 for this material for two addi-
tional cases of notched members, a center-hole geometry and a
bluntly notched compact geometry.
Finally, it is noted that a definite unacceptable condition for
fatigue is specified for qualifying a prototype by test for cyclic
service. Code’s Section III, Division 1, Appendices, II-1520共b兲,
states that ‘‘Failure herein is defined as the propagation of a crack
through the entire thickness, such as would produce a measurable
leak in a pressure-retaining member.’’ If this condition were also
required for design, then the procedure of the current design rules
in Sections III and VIII would have to be changed.
9 Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn regarding the design cri-
terion of fatigue analysis on plastic basis that is performed by the
rules of Sections III and VIII of the Code.
1兲 The design criterion of the current Code rules is crack ini-
tiation to a certain size and not failure.
2兲 The crack size initiated at the design-criterion cycles depends
on the strain range and geometry.
3兲 The design criterion for geometries that do not exhibit a
strain range gradient away from the surface will be closer to fail-
ure than that for geometries that do exhibit a strain range gradient
away from the surface.
4兲 For geometries that exhibit a strain range gradient away from
the surface, the number of cycles allowed by the current fatigue
design rules includes the initiation phase but not the propagation
phase of a fatigue crack.
5兲 If the design criterion of the fatigue analysis were defined as
the propagation of a crack through the entire wall in a pressure-
retaining member, then the current Code rules would have to be
changed.
6兲 The results of fatigue analysis by the current Code rules are
conservative with respect to those of a fatigue analysis for which
the design criterion is defined as the propagation of a crack
through the entire wall in a pressure-retaining member.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the members of the Task Force on
Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Analysis and the ASME B&PV
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Code Subgroup for Design and Analysis, both chaired by David P.
Jones, for their help in developing the ideas that led to this paper.
References
关1兴 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2001, ASME, New York.
关2兴 Langer, B. F., 1962, ‘‘Design of Pressure Vessels for Low-Cycle Fatigue,’’
ASME J. Basic Eng., pp. 389– 402.
关3兴 ASME, 1969, ‘‘Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for
Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Division 2,’’ ASME, New York.
关4兴 Dowling N. E., 1999, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Second Edition,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
关5兴 Dowling N. E., 1977, ‘‘Crack Growth During Low-Cycle Fatigue of Smooth
Axial Specimens,’’ Cyclic Stress-Strain and Plastic Deformation Aspects of
Fatigue Crack Growth, ASTM STP 637, Am. Soc. For Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 97–121.
关6兴 Dowling, N. E., 1979, ‘‘Fatigue at Notches and the Local Strain and Fracture
Mechanics Approaches,’’ Fracture Mechanics, ASTM STP 677, Am. Soc. For
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 247–273.
关7兴 Dowling, N. E., 1979, ‘‘Notched Member Fatigue Life Predictions Combining
Crack Initiation and Propagation,’’ Fatigue of Engineering Materials and
Structures, 2, pp. 129–138.
关8兴 Dowling, N. E., 1983, ‘‘Growth of Short Fatigue Cracks in an Alloy Steel,’’
Paper No. 83-PVP-94, ASME 4th National Congress on Pressure Vessels and
Piping Technology, June 19–23, 1983, Portland, OR, pp. 1–15.
关9兴 Tavernelli, J. F., and Coffin, Jr., L. F., 1959, ‘‘A Compilation and Interpretation
of Cyclic Fatigue Strain Tests on Metals,’’ Transactions of American Society of
Metals, 51, pp. 438 – 453.
关10兴 Dowling, N. E., and Wilson, W. K., 1981, ‘‘Geometry and Size Requirements
for Fatigue Life Similitude Among Notched Members,’’ Fifth International
Conference on Fracture, Cannes, France, published in Advances in Fracture
Research, D. Francois et al., ed., Pergamon Press, pp. 581–588.
关11兴 ABAQUS FE Code, 2004, Version 6.1, Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc.,
Pawtucket, R.I., by Educational License to Lehigh University.
关12兴 Dowling, N. E., 1978, ‘‘Stress-Strain Analysis of Cyclic Plastic Bending and
Torsion,’’ ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 100, pp. 157–163.
关13兴 Dowling, N. E., and Wilson, W. K., 1979, ‘‘Analysis of Notch Strain for Cyclic
Loading,’’ Fifth Int. Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology,
Vol. L, West Berlin, Germany, Paper L13/4, pp. 1– 8.
关14兴 Mroz, Z., 1967, ‘‘On the Description of Anisotropic Work Hardening,’’ J.
Mech. Phys. Solids, 15, pp. 163–175.
关15兴 Mroz, Z., 1973, ‘‘Boundary-Value Problems in Cyclic Plasticity,’’ Second Int.
Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, W. Berlin, Germany,
Vol. 6B, Part L, Paper L7/6.
关16兴 Kalnins, A., 2001, ‘‘Fatigue Analysis of Pressure Vessels with Twice-Yield
Plastic FEA,’’ ASME Bound Vol. 419, pp. 43–52.
NOVEMBER 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 465