ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

APPLICATION OF THE NEUBER APPROACH TO PREDICT CRACK

INITIATION IN COMPONENTS

C. M. Davies*, N. P. ODowd*, K. M. Nikbin*, F. Biglari, G. A. Webster*

The Neuber method is commonly used to estimate the stress field ahead of
a crack tip in an elastic-plastic material and has been incorporated into a
number of failure assessment procedures. In this work a compact tension
specimen is examined under plane strain conditions using the
Ramberg-Osgood power law plasticity model. It is found that existing
procedures provide a reasonable estimate of the equivalent von Mises
stress over a wide range of load levels, but non-conservative estimates of
the maximum principal stress. A method is proposed to determine the
maximum principal stress from the equivalent stress determined by the
Neuber method. Through the use of the proposed techniques, accurate
estimates of the von Mises equivalent and maximum principal stress
ahead of a sharp crack tip can be obtained. The implications of the result
in terms of the lifetime prediction of cracked components are discussed.

INTRODUCTION
In component lifetime assessments a procedure, known as the sigma-d method, has
been proposed to estimate the crack initiation period from pre-existing defects, i.e. the
time required for the onset of crack growth due to creep and/or fatigue. The method,
developed by Moulin et al. [1], predicts that initiation occurs under creep conditions
when the stress at a distance d ahead of the crack tip is equal to the stress which causes
rupture under uniaxial conditions.
The sigma-d method has recently been introduced into the British Energy defect
assessment procedure, R5 [2]. The method is currently based on the elastic-plastic
stress field generated ahead of the crack tip and does not consider the relaxation of
stress due to creep. This stress field may be estimated by a number of methods
including procedures based on Neubers rule [3].
In Davies et al. [4] a comparison of the crack tip stress field predictions obtained
from a number of methods, including Neubers method, with full field finite element
solutions has been performed, for a CT specimen under plane strain conditions. Some
of the key results of [4] are reviewed here. In addition, the sensitivity of the sigma-d

*Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amirbkabir University of Technology, Hefez Avenue, Tehran, Iran
Contact author email address: catrin.davies@imperial.ac.uk

EMAS 2004

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

method, and hence lifetime predictions, to the stress estimate will be considered.
STRESS ESTIMATES FROM NEUBERS METHOD
Neuber [3] proposed that, for a material which obeys a non-linear deformation law that
is linear at vanishingly small stresses, the maximum stress in the vicinity of a sharply
curved notch is related to the nominal (remote) stress through a linear elastic stress
concentration factor. Neuber [3] suggests that the method may be generalised to any
arbitrary loading state through the use of the equivalent stress.
Different interpretations of the Neuber method are found in the literature, which
predict either the stress normal to the crack plane (which is also the maximum principal
stress in the plane of the crack under Mode I conditions) or the equivalent von Mises
stress. A brief description of four Neuber methods detailed in [4] follows and a
summary of the key equations are given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Method
Name
Neuber

Summary of Neuber methods

Stress
Predicted

Equation

N
N

Equivalent,
0 d
de 0 ref (1)
d
de

+
=
+

d
de
d
E
E ref
E 0
E 0

Max.
Neuber-R5 Principal,

d
Neuber- Equivalent,
R5(A)
d
Max.
Neuber(M) Principal,

(2)

0 d
ref
de
+ 0

= de

E
E 0
E 0

(3)

d d

0 d
ref
de
+ 0

= de

E
E 0
E 0
N

M ME

N
N

0 d
0 ref (4)
de

=
+

de
E
E M 0
E 0

The derivation of Eqs. (1)(4), shown in Table 1, is given in [4]. In Table 1

d and
d refer to, respectively, the equivalent von Mises stress and the maximum principal
stress in the plane of the crack (or stress normal to the crack plane) at a distance d
ahead of the crack tip. Likewise,
de and de refer to the equivalent von Mises linear
elastic stress and the maximum principal linear elastic stress in the plane of the crack, at
a distance d ahead of the crack tip. All the equations in Table 1 contain terms of the

EMAS 2004

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

form stress strain. In the equations the stress-strain relation is described by a

Ramberg-Osgood type equation where N is the strain hardening power law dependence,
E is the Youngs Modulus, 0 is the normalising stress and is a constant. The
definition of equivalent strain used in Eqs. (1) and (3) is based on the relationship
proposed in Harkegaard and Mann [6] where the total equivalent strain is given by the
sum of the von Mises elastic and plastic deviatoric strains, giving rise to an effective
elastic modulus E = 3E (2(1 + v)) where is the Poissons ratio. An alternative
definition of equivalent strain (see e.g. Chen et al. [7]) may be used, in which case
E = E. Also in Eqs (1)(4) the nominal stress is taken to be the reference stress, ref
(see e.g. Webster and Ainsworth [5]).

For a sharp crack the linear elastic equivalent (von Mises) stress in the crack plane
de, is determined from the K field,
at a distance d directly ahead of the crack tip,

de =

K
where
2 d

1 2v for plane strain

1
for plane stress.

(5)

In Eq. (5) K is the linear elastic stress intensity factor. Similarly the linear elastic
maximum principal stress at d, de, is given by

de =

K
2 d

(6)

under both plane stress and plane strain conditions.

The equivalent (von Mises) elastic-plastic stress at a distance d ahead of the crack
tip, d , may be obtained by the solution of the Neuber method (Eq. 1). In the R5
sigma-d procedure, the maximum principal elastic-plastic stress at a distance d directly
ahead of the crack tip, d, is given by the solution of Eq. (2), here denoted the
Neuber-R5 method. (A value of d equal to 50 m is recommended in the R5 procedure
for austenitic stainless steels).
An alternative form of the R5 equation is proposed in [4] to predict the equivalent
stress by replacing the maximum principal stresses d and de in Eq. (2) by their
equivalent stress values, d and
de, respectively. The resultant equation, Eq. (3) in
Table 1, is denoted the adapted R5 equation or the Neuber-R5(A) method and differs
from Eq. (1) since the second term in the bracket on the right hand side (the equivalent
plastic strain at reference stress) is not amplified by the linear elastic stress
de/ref). Hence the Neuber-R5(A) method does not precisely
concentration factor (
follow the original formulation of Neuber given by Eq. (1).
In the defect assessment procedures R5 [3] and A16 [8] the maximum principal
stress (stress normal to the crack plane), d, is used to predict the time to crack
initiation. An alternative approach to determining d has been proposed in [4]. There d
was obtained by scaling the corresponding equivalent stress, d , obtained from the

EMAS 2004

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

Neuber method. For a given d the value of the ratio d /d is dependent on load,
specimen geometry and strain hardening power law dependence, N. Based on finite
element studies on a CT specimen a representative value of d /d , denoted M, has been
used to determine d from the equivalent Mises stress obtained from the Neuber-R5(A)
method. The value of M has the following dependency on load [4]
M=

ref

d
= 0.22
+ 2.96 .
d
0

(7)

The function M shown in Eq. (7) has been chosen to be conservative over the relevant
crack tip distances, for N between 5 and 10, and to give optimal agreement with the FE
solutions at d = 50 m. The maximum principal stress, d, may be estimated by solving
Eq. (4) using the M value calculated from Eq. (7).
ANALYSIS METHODS AND MODELS
Specimen Geometry, Material and Finite Element Model
A compact tension (CT) specimen has been examined with a crack length to specimen
width ratio, a/W, equal to 0.5. The Ramberg-Osgood material model is used with
= 0.1, E/0 = 912, representative of austenitic stainless steel at around 600oC. Two
values of N have been used, N = 5 and 10. Plane strain conditions have been examined
and small displacement theory used (i.e. effects of crack blunting have been ignored).
Finite element calculations have been performed using the commercial software
package ABAQUS [9]. Only one half of each specimen has been modelled due to
symmetry and a sharp crack has been represented with a focused mesh at the crack tip.
The mesh for the CT specimen consists of 2005 nodes and 1895 plane strain, linear
hybrid elements. Further details of the finite element analysis are provided in [4].
Stress Estimates and Initiation Time Predictions
The four Neuber equations, shown in Table 1, have been solved iteratively to give the
stress d or d . The accuracy of the Neuber stress estimates has been assessed by
comparison with finite element solutions. The sensitivity of the initiation time
predictions given by sigma-d method to the accuracy of the various stress estimates has
also been examined. The sensitivity is assessed by calculating the ratio between the
initiation time predicted from the Neuber stress estimate to that obtained from the finite
element stress solution. For this purpose, a stress to rupture time relation has been
assumed such that the initiation time, ti, is estimated from (see e.g. [5])

ti = B p .

EMAS 2004

(8)

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

where p and B are the rupture stress exponent and constant, respectively and is the
relevant stress estimate (i.e. d or d ). A typical value of p equal to 10 has been
assumed. The results are expressed here in normalised form and are independent of B.
RESULTS
Maximum Principal Stress PredictionsNeuber-R5 Method
A comparison of the maximum principal stress distributions, d, over a range of crack
tip distances d, obtained from the Neuber-R5 method (Eq. 2) and the finite element
(FE) results is presented in Fig. 1 for N = 10. All stress values are normalised by 0 and
the distance, d, is normalised by crack length, a. The results for ref /0 = 0.1 and 1.8
are shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b), which correspond to small scale and large scale yielding
conditions, respectively. At ref /0 = 0.1 the stress predicted by the Neuber-R5 method
falls below the FE solution at d/a < 0.004. Very poor agreement between the
Neuber-R5 estimate and FE solution is seen in Fig. 1(b) for ref /0 = 1.8.
Based on a standard CT specimen (W = 50 mm), the ratio between the d stress
from the Neuber-R5 method and the FE solution at d = 50 m is shown in Fig. 2(a) for
N = 5 and 10 (A distance d = 50 m corresponds to d/a = 0.002 for a standard CT
specimen). The Neuber stress estimate and the finite element solution are represented in
the figure by the subscripts N and FE, respectively. It is seen in Fig 2(a) that a
non-conservative prediction of d (indicated by a stress ratio less than 1) is obtained by
the Neuber-R5 method over the entire load range. The ratio of the respective initiation
time predictions from Eq. (8) is shown in Fig. 2(b). It is seen that the values of
initiation time, ti, predicted from the Neuber-R5 stress estimate for ref /0 > 0.2 are
non-conservative and up to four orders of magnitude greater than the predictions based
on the FE stress solution. Note that the implicit assumption here is that initiation is
controlled by the maximum principal stress and hence in Eq. (8) is equal to d.
Equivalent von Mises Stress PredictionsNeuber and Neuber-R5(A)
A comparison of the d stress from the Neuber method, Eq. (1), the Neuber-R5(A)
method, Eq. (3), and the FE solution is presented in Fig. 3 for N = 10. For ref /0 = 0.1
(Fig. 3a) the solutions are almost indistinguishable from each other. At ref /0 = 1.8
(Fig. 3b) it can be seen that both methods provide a conservative prediction of the
equivalent von Mises stress distribution, relative to the FE distribution, over the
distances of interest.
In Fig. 4(a), the ratios between the d stress from the Neuber and Neuber-R5(A)
methods and the FE solution are shown over the load range considered, for d = 50 m
(based on a standard CT specimen). For ref /0 < 1.0 results from both solutions are
virtually indistinguishable, and are slightly non-conservative for ref /0 < 0.2. At
higher loads a conservative prediction is achieved by both methods. It is also seen in

EMAS 2004

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

the figure that the prediction from the Neuber-R5(A) method (the solid line)
consistently falls below that of the Neuber method (the dash line) and is significantly
less conservative, though more accurate, at high loads (ref /0 > 0.8). Figure 4(b)
shows the ratios of the predicted initiation times, assuming that initiation is controlled
by the equivalent stress. It is seen that the Neuber stress estimate (Eq. 1), in conjunction
with Eq. (8), leads to a prediction of ti that is more conservative than that from the
Neuber-R5(A) stress estimate and is in fact on the order of four times more
conservative for N = 10 at high loads.
Maximum Principal Stress Predictions Modified Neuber Method
A comparison of the d stress determined by the modified Neuber method (Neuber(M))
is shown in Fig. 5 for the CT specimen with N = 10. At ref /0 = 0.1 (Fig. 5a), the
Neuber(M) stress estimate is almost indistinguishable from the FE solution. At the
higher load of ref /0 = 1.8 (Fig. 5b) the scaling factor used provides conservative
results for d/a > 0.002. In this region the Neuber(M) stress is approximately 20%
higher than the finite element solution.
The ratio between the maximum principal stress in the plane of the crack, d,
estimated by the modified Neuber method and that obtained from the FE solution is
shown in Fig. 6(a) for N = 5 and 10. Results are in all cases conservative, indicated by a
ratio greater than 1. Consequently, conservative initiation time predictions are obtained
by the Neuber(M) stress estimate in relation to the FE solution, indicated by a ratio less
than 1 in Fig. 6(b). It is seen in this figure that initiation time predictions from
Neuber(M) are very close to those predicted from the FE stress at intermediate loads,
and within an order of magnitude of the FE prediction over the load range.
Comparison of Neuber R5 Maximum Principal Stress Estimates to the FE von Mises
Stress Solution
The ratio between the maximum principal stress estimate at d = 50 m from the
Neuber-R5 method, (d)N , and the FE solution for the equivalent Mises stress, (d )FE
is shown in Fig. 7(a). If it is assumed that initiation time is controlled by the equivalent
d, as in e.g. [5], and not by the maximum principal stress, d, as proposed in the
stress
sigma-d method, Fig. 7(a) indicates that the use of the Neuber- R5 method (giving d)
will provide a conservative prediction for the cases considered, under plane strain
conditions. Within the load range (0.2 ref /0 1.4) for N = 10, the ratio
(d )N / (d )FE is generally constant at around 1.3 (see Fig. 7a). Therefore using Eq. (8)
and assuming that crack initiation under creep conditions is controlled by the equivalent
stress; the resultant ti predicted from the Neuber-R5 method would be conservative
(underpredict the initiation time) by a factor of around fourteen for this load range,
under plane strain conditions, as shown in Fig 7(b) (i.e. considerably more conservative
than the Neuber(M) method).

EMAS 2004

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Crack tip stress distributions have been predicted by the Neuber method and the full
field solution has been obtained from finite element calculations on a CT specimen.
Under plane strain conditions non-conservative predictions of the maximum principal
stress in the plane of the crack, d, over a range of distances d, have been obtained from
the Neuber method, as proposed in the current R5 procedure [2]. An adapted form of
the R5 Neuber method (Neuber-R5(A)) is proposed, which replaces the maximum
principal stress with the equivalent von Mises stress. This method provides
conservative estimates of the equivalent von Mises stress d . The method, here
designated Neuber-R5(A), used is not precisely consistent with the original form of
Neubers rule, but it is found that, under plane strain conditions and for the material
properties chosen, more accurate (though less conservative) estimates of d are
obtained using this equation than are obtained using an equation consistent with
Neubers original formulation. Encouraging results are also obtained from the
Neuber(M) method, which has been proposed to obtain an estimate of d.
The stress estimates at a distance d = 50 m ahead of the crack tip (based on a
standard CT specimen, a = 25 mm) have subsequently been used in the sigma-d method
to predict the time to crack initiation under creep conditions and compared to
predictions based on the corresponding FE stress solution. Only the Neuber(M) stress
estimate leads to conservative initiation time predictions, compared to predictions
based on the FE stress solutions, for ref /0 > 0.2. If failure is controlled by the
maximum principal stress non-conservative estimates of initiation time may be
obtained using the current versions of the R5 sigma-d procedure. However, if initiation
is controlled by the equivalent stress, conservative initiation time predictions are
expected from the procedure since the value of the Neuber-R5 stress estimate is found
to be greater than the value of the respective finite element equivalent von Mises stress.
The discussion here has been limited to the case when crack initiation is controlled
either by the maximum principal stress or the equivalent stress. However, more
generally, initiation may be controlled by some combination of the maximum principal
and equivalent stress values. For this situation conservative results are expected to be
obtained through the combined use of the Neuber-R5(A) and Neuber(M) equations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like gratefully to acknowledge helpful discussions with Dr Manus
ODonnell of British Energy Generation Ltd.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
a, W
B, p
d

EMAS 2004

Crack length and width of specimen, respectively

Creep rupture constant and exponent, respectively
Distance directly ahead of crack tip in the plane of the crack

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

E, E
K
, 0, N
d
de

de
ref
v

Youngs modulus, Effective elastic modulus

Linear elastic crack tip stress intensity factor
Constants in Ramberg-Osgood plasticity law
Equivalent (von Mises) stress at a distance d ahead of crack tip
Equivalent linear elastic stress at a distance d ahead of the crack tip
Stress normal to crack plane (Maximum principal stress in the crack
plane) at a distance d ahead of the crack tip
Linear elastic d stress
Reference stress
Poissons ratio
REFERENCE LIST

(1)

Moulin, D., Drubay, B., Acker, D., and Laiarinandrasana, L., A Practical Method
Based on Stress Evaluation (d Criterion) to Predict Initiation of Crack Under
Creep and Creep-Fatigue Conditions, J. Press. Vess-T ASME, 1995, Vol. 117, pp.
16.

(2)

British Energy Generation Ltd., R5: Assessment Procedure for the High
Temperature Response of Structures. BEGL., Issue 3, 2003.

(3)

Neuber, H., Theory of Stress Concentration for Shear Strained Prismatic Bodies
with Arbitrary Non-Linear Stress Strain Law. J. App. Mech-T ASME, 1961, pp.
544550.

(4)

Davies, C. M., ODowd, N. P., Nikbin, K. M., Webster, G. A., Biglari, F.,
Comparison of Methods for Obtaining Crack Tip Stress Distributions in an
Elastic-Plastic Material, Submitted for publication, 2004.

(5)

Webster, G. A. and Ainsworth, R. A., High Temperature Component Life

Assessment. 1st ed. 1994, Chapman and Hall: London.

(6)

Harkegaard, G. and Mann, T., Neuber Prediction of Elastic-Plastic Strain

Concentration in Notched Tensile Specimens Under Large-Scale Yielding. J.
Strain Anal. Eng, 2003, Vol. 38(1), pp. 7994.

(7)

Chen, G. X., Wang, C. H., and Rose, L. R. F., A Perturbation Solution for a Crack
in a Power Law Material Under Gross Yielding. Fatigue Frac. Eng. M, 2002,
Vol. 25, pp. 231242.

(8)

RCC-MR, Guide for Leak Before Break Analysis and Defect Assessment,
Appendix A16, 2002, AFCEN.

(9)

ABAQUS Users Manual, Version 6.2, Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorenson Inc., 2001.

EMAS 2004

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

FIGURES
5.0

10.0

ref / 0 = 0.1
N = 10

4.0

ref / 0 = 1.8

3.0
2.0
1.0

4.0
2.0

0.0
0.00

(b)
0.01

0.02

0.03

0.0
0.00

0.04

0.01

d /a

0.04

1.E+05

0.7

1.E+03

N =5

0.6

N = 10

0.5
0.4

1.E+04

ti (d )N / ti (d )FE

0.8

(d )N / (d )FE

0.03

d /a

d = 50 m
a = 25 mm

0.9

N = 10

1.E+02
1.E+01

(a)

(b)

0.2

N = 5
d = 50 m
a = 25 mm

1.E+00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

ref / 0

Figure 2

0.02

Comparison of normalised d stress predictions from Neuber-R5 and FE for

(a) ref /0 = 0.1 and (b) ref /0 = 1.8.

1.0

0.3

Neuber - R5

6.0

(a)

Figure 1

FE

N = 10

8.0

Neuber - R5

d /0

d /0

FE

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
ref / 0

Ratio between (a) d stress and (b) ti prediction from Neuber-R5 and FE.

EMAS 2004

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

1.5
1.0
0.5

0.5

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.0
0.00

0.04

0.01

1.6

1.E+01
Neuber
Neuber - R5(A)

1.4

N =5

1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0

d = 50 m
a = 25 mm

N = 10

(a)

1.E-01

Neuber

(b)

Neuber R5(A)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
ref / 0

ref / 0

Ratio between the (a) von Mises stress and (b) initiation time prediction
from the Neuber method, the adapted R5 Neuber method and FE.
10.0

ref / 0 = 0.1

ref / 0 = 1.8

Neuber (M)

N = 10

4.0

d /0

2.0

N = 10

8.0

FE

3.0

1.0

6.0
4.0
Neuber (M)

2.0

(a)
0.0
0.00

FE

(b)
0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

d/a

Figure 5

N = 10

1.E-03

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Figure 4

N = 5

1.E-02

1.E-04

0.8

5.0

0.04

d = 50 m
a = 25 mm

1.E+00

ti (d )N / ti (d )FE

1.5

0.9

0.03

Comparison of normalised d stress predictions Neuber-R5(A) and FE for

(a) ref /0 = 0.1 and (b) ref /0 = 1.8.

Figure 3

(d )N / (d )FE

0.02

d/a

d/a

d / 0

Neuber
Neuber - R5(A)
FE

N = 10
(b)

(a)
0.0
0.00

ref / 0 = 1.8

2.0

d / 0

d / 0

2.5

FE
ref / 0 = 0.1
Neuber
N = 10
Neuber - R5(A)

0.0
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

d/a

Comparison of normalised d stress distributions from Neuber(M) and FE

for (a) ref /0 = 0.1 and (b) ref /0 = 1.8.

EMAS 2004

10

ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

1.6

1.E+01

d = 50 m
a = 25 mm

1.E+00

(d )N / (d )FE

1.4
1.3

N = 10

1.2

N =5

1.1
1.0

ti (d )N / ti (d )FE

1.5

1.E-01

N = 10

1.E-03

0.9
0.8

1.E-04
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
ref / 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

ref / 0

Figure 6
2.6

Ratio between (a) d stress and (b) ti prediction from Neuber(M) and FE.

2.0
1.8

N = 10

1.6
1.4
1.2

1.E-01
1.E-02

N = 10

1.E-03

(b)

(a)

1.0

d = 50 m
a = 25 mm

1.E+00

N =5

ti (d )N / ti (d )FE

2.2

(d )N / (d )FE

1.E+01

d = 50 m
a = 25 mm

2.4

d = 50 m
a = 25 mm

(b)

(a)

N = 5

1.E-02

N = 5

1.E-04

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
ref / 0

Figure 7

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
ref / 0

Ratio between (a) d from Neuber-R5 and d from FE and (b) their
respective initiation time predictions.

EMAS 2004

11