bud98209_ch05_226-272.

indd Page 233 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

Failures Resulting from Static Loading 233

5–3 Failure Theories

Section 5–1 illustrated some ways that loss of function is manifested. Events such as
distortion, permanent set, cracking, and rupturing are among the ways that a machine
element fails. Testing machines appeared in the 1700s, and specimens were pulled,
bent, and twisted in simple loading processes.
If the failure mechanism is simple, then simple tests can give clues. Just what is
simple? The tension test is uniaxial (that’s simple) and elongations are largest in the
axial direction, so strains can be measured and stresses inferred up to “failure.” Just
what is important: a critical stress, a critical strain, a critical energy? In the next several
sections, we shall show failure theories that have helped answer some of these questions.
Unfortunately, there is no universal theory of failure for the general case of mate-
rial properties and stress state. Instead, over the years several hypotheses have been
formulated and tested, leading to today’s accepted practices. Being accepted, we will
characterize these “practices” as theories as most designers do.
Structural metal behavior is typically classified as being ductile or brittle, although
under special situations, a material normally considered ductile can fail in a brittle
manner (see Sec. 5–12). Ductile materials are normally classified such that ef $ 0.05
and have an identifiable yield strength that is often the same in compression as in
tension (Syt 5 Syc 5 Sy). Brittle materials, ef , 0.05, do not exhibit an identifiable
yield strength, and are typically classified by ultimate tensile and compressive
strengths, Sut and Suc, respectively (where Suc is given as a positive quantity). The
generally accepted theories are:
Ductile materials (yield criteria)
• Maximum shear stress (MSS), Sec. 5–4
• Distortion energy (DE), Sec. 5–5
• Ductile Coulomb-Mohr (DCM), Sec. 5–6
Brittle materials (fracture criteria)
• Maximum normal stress (MNS), Sec. 5–8
• Brittle Coulomb-Mohr (BCM), Sec. 5–9
• Modified Mohr (MM), Sec. 5–9
It would be inviting if we had one universally accepted theory for each material
type, but for one reason or another, they are all used. Later, we will provide rationales
for selecting a particular theory. First, we will describe the bases of these theories and
apply them to some examples.

5–4 Maximum-Shear-Stress Theory

for Ductile Materials
The maximum-shear-stress (MSS) theory predicts that yielding begins whenever the
maximum shear stress in any element equals or exceeds the maximum shear stress in
a tension-test specimen of the same material when that specimen begins to yield. The
MSS theory is also referred to as the Tresca or Guest theory.
Many theories are postulated on the basis of the consequences seen from tensile
tests. As a strip of a ductile material is subjected to tension, slip lines (called Lüder
lines) form at approximately 45° with the axis of the strip. These slip lines are the
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 234 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

234 Mechanical Engineering Design

beginning of yield, and when loaded to fracture, fracture lines are also seen at angles
approximately 45° with the axis of tension. Since the shear stress is maximum at 45°
from the axis of tension, it makes sense to think that this is the mechanism of failure.
It will be shown in the next section, that there is a little more going on than this.
However, it turns out the MSS theory is an acceptable but conservative predictor of
failure; and since engineers are conservative by nature, it is quite often used.
Recall that for simple tensile stress, s 5 PyA, and the maximum shear stress
occurs on a surface 45° from the tensile surface with a magnitude of tmax 5 sy2. So
the maximum shear stress at yield is tmax 5 Syy2. For a general state of stress, three
principal stresses can be determined and ordered such that s1 $ s2 $ s3. The max-
imum shear stress is then tmax 5 (s1 2 s3)y2 (see Fig. 3–12). Thus, for a general
state of stress, the maximum-shear-stress theory predicts yielding when
s1 2 s3 Sy
tmax 5 $   or  s1 2 s3 $ Sy (5–1)
2 2
Note that this implies that the yield strength in shear is given by
Ssy 5 0.5Sy (5–2)

which, as we will see later is about 15 percent low (conservative).

For design purposes, Eq. (5–1) can be modified to incorporate a factor of safety, n.
Thus,
Sy Sy
tmax 5   or  s1 2 s3 5 (5–3)
2n n
Plane stress is a very common state of stress in design. However, it is extremely
important to realize that plane stress is a three-dimensional state of stress. Plane stress
transformations in Sec. 3–6 are restricted to the in-plane stresses only, where the in-
plane principal stresses are given by Eq. (3–13) and labeled as s1 and s2. It is true
that these are the principal stresses in the plane of analysis, but out of plane there is
a third principal stress and it is always zero for plane stress. This means that if we
are going to use the convention of ordering s1 $ s2 $ s3 for three-dimensional
analysis, upon which Eq. (5–1) is based, we cannot arbitrarily call the in-plane prin-
cipal stresses s1 and s2 until we relate them with the third principal stress of zero.
To illustrate the MSS theory graphically for plane stress, we will first label the prin-
cipal stresses given by Eq. (3–13) as sA and sB, and then order them with the zero
principal stress according to the convention s1 $ s2 $ s3. Assuming that sA $ sB,
there are three cases to consider when using Eq. (5–1) for plane stress:
Case 1: sA $ sB $ 0. For this case, s1 5 sA and s3 5 0. Equation (5–1)
reduces to a yield condition of
sA $ Sy (5–4)

Case 2: sA $ 0 $ sB. Here, s1 5 sA and s3 5 sB, and Eq. (5–1) becomes

sA 2 sB $ Sy (5–5)

Case 3: 0 $ sA $ sB. For this case, s1 5 0 and s3 5 sB, and Eq. (5–1) gives
sB # 2Sy (5–6)

Equations (5–4) to (5–6) are represented in Fig. 5–7 by the three lines indicated in
the sA, sB plane. The remaining unmarked lines are cases for sB $ sA, which com-
pletes the stress yield envelope but are not normally used. The maximum-shear-stress
theory predicts yield if a stress state is outside the shaded region bordered by the
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 235 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

Failures Resulting from Static Loading 235

␴B
Figure 5–7
Sy Case 1
The maximum-shear-stress
(MSS) theory yield envelope
for plane stress, where sA and b
sB are the two nonzero a Load line
principal stresses.

on
gi
O ␴A

re
–Sy Sy

eld
i
ny
No
Case 2

–Sy

Case 3

stress yield envelope. In Fig. 5–7, suppose point a represents the stress state of a
critical stress element of a member. If the load is increased, it is typical to assume
that the principal stresses will increase proportionally along the line from the origin
through point a. Such a load line is shown. If the stress situation increases along the
load line until it crosses the stress failure envelope, such as at point b, the MSS
theory predicts that the stress element will yield. The factor of safety guarding against
yield at point a is given by the ratio of strength (distance to failure at point b) to stress
(distance to stress at point a), that is n 5 ObyOa.
Note that the first part of Eq. (5–3), tmax 5 Syy2n, is sufficient for design purposes
provided the designer is careful in determining tmax. For plane stress, Eq. (3–14) does
not always predict tmax. However, consider the special case when one normal stress
is zero in the plane, say sx and txy have values and sy 5 0. It can be easily shown
that this is a Case 2 problem, and the shear stress determined by Eq. (3–14) is tmax.
Shaft design problems typically fall into this category where a normal stress exists
from bending and/or axial loading, and a shear stress arises from torsion.

5–5 Distortion-Energy Theory for Ductile Materials

The distortion-energy theory predicts that yielding occurs when the distortion strain
energy per unit volume reaches or exceeds the distortion strain energy per unit volume
for yield in simple tension or compression of the same material.
The distortion-energy (DE) theory originated from the observation that ductile
materials stressed hydrostatically (equal principal stresses) exhibited yield strengths
greatly in excess of the values given by the simple tension test. Therefore it was
postulated that yielding was not a simple tensile or compressive phenomenon at all,
but, rather, that it was related somehow to the angular distortion of the stressed element.
To develop the theory, note, in Fig. 5–8a, the unit volume subjected to any three-
dimensional stress state designated by the stresses s1, s2, and s3. The stress state
shown in Fig. 5–8b is one of hydrostatic normal stresses due to the stresses sav acting
in each of the same principal directions as in Fig. 5–8a. The formula for sav is simply
s1 1 s2 1 s3
sav 5 (a)
3
Thus the element in Fig. 5–8b undergoes pure volume change, that is, no angular
distortion. If we regard sav as a component of s1, s2, and s3, then this component
can be subtracted from them, resulting in the stress state shown in Fig. 5–8c. This
element is subjected to pure angular distortion, that is, no volume change.
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 236 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

236 Mechanical Engineering Design

2 av 2 – av

= +
1 av 1 – av

3 av 3 – av
1 > 2 > 3

(a) Triaxial stresses (b) Hydrostatic component (c) Distortional component

Figure 5–8
(a) Element with triaxial stresses; this element undergoes both volume change
and angular distortion. (b) Element under hydrostatic normal stresses undergoes
only volume change. (c) Element has angular distortion without volume change.

The strain energy per unit volume for simple tension is u 5 12 ⑀s. For the element
of Fig. 5–8a the strain energy per unit volume is u 5 12 [⑀1s1 1 ⑀2s2 1 ⑀3s3 ].
Substituting Eq. (3–19) for the principal strains gives
1
u5 [s21 1 s22 1 s23 2 2n(s1s2 1 s2s3 1 s3s1 )] (b)
2E
The strain energy for producing only volume change uv can be obtained by substitut-
ing sav for s1, s2, and s3 in Eq. (b). The result is
3s2av
uv 5 (1 2 2n) (c)
2E
If we now substitute the square of Eq. (a) in Eq. (c) and simplify the expression, we get
1 2 2n 2
uv 5 (s1 1 s22 1 s23 1 2s1s2 1 2s2s3 1 2s3s1 ) (5–7)
6E
Then the distortion energy is obtained by subtracting Eq. (5–7) from Eq. (b). This
gives
1 1 n (s1 2 s2 ) 2 1 (s2 2 s3 ) 2 1 (s3 2 s1 ) 2
ud 5 u 2 u v 5 c d (5–8)
3E 2
Note that the distortion energy is zero if s1 5 s2 5 s3.
For the simple tensile test, at yield, s1 5 Sy and s2 5 s3 5 0, and from Eq. (5–8)
the distortion energy is
11n 2
ud 5 Sy (5–9)
3E
So for the general state of stress given by Eq. (5–8), yield is predicted if Eq. (5–8)
equals or exceeds Eq. (5–9). This gives

(s1 2 s2 ) 2 1 (s2 2 s3 ) 2 1 (s3 2 s1 ) 2 1y2

c d $ Sy (5–10)
2

If we had a simple case of tension s, then yield would occur when s $ Sy. Thus,
the left of Eq. (5–10) can be thought of as a single, equivalent, or effective stress for
the entire general state of stress given by s1, s2, and s3. This effective stress is usually
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 237 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

Failures Resulting from Static Loading 237

B
Figure 5–9
The distortion-energy (DE) Sy
theory yield envelope for
plane stress states. This is a
plot of points obtained from

on
gi
Eq. (5–13) with s9 5 Sy.

re
A

d
el
yi
–Sy Sy

on
N
Pure shear load line (A  B  )
–Sy DE
MSS

called the von Mises stress, s9, named after Dr. R. von Mises, who contributed to the
theory. Thus Eq. (5–10), for yield, can be written as
s¿ $ Sy (5–11)

where the von Mises stress is

(s1 2 s2 ) 2 1 (s2 2 s3 ) 2 1 (s3 2 s1 ) 2 1y2
s¿ 5 c d (5–12)
2
For plane stress, the von Mises stress can be represented by the principal stresses
sA, sB, and zero. Then from Eq. (5–12), we get
s¿ 5 (s2A 2 sAsB 1 s2B ) 1y2 (5–13)

Equation (5–13) is a rotated ellipse in the sA, sB plane, as shown in Fig. 5–9 with
s9 5 Sy. The dotted lines in the figure represent the MSS theory, which can be seen
to be more restrictive, hence, more conservative.4
Using xyz components of three-dimensional stress, the von Mises stress can be
written as
1
s¿ 5 [(sx 2 sy ) 2 1 (sy 2 sz ) 2 1 (sz 2 sx ) 2 1 6(t2xy 1 t2yz 1 t2zx )] 1y2 (5–14)
22
and for plane stress,
s¿ 5 (s2x 2 sx sy 1 s2y 1 3t2xy ) 1y2 (5–15)

The distortion-energy theory is also called:

• The von Mises or von Mises–Hencky theory
• The shear-energy theory
• The octahedral-shear-stress theory
Understanding octahedral shear stress will shed some light on why the MSS is con-
servative. Consider an isolated element in which the normal stresses on each surface

4
The three-dimensional equations for DE and MSS can be plotted relative to three-dimensional s1, s2,
s3, coordinate axes. The failure surface for DE is a circular cylinder with an axis inclined at 45° from
each principal stress axis, whereas the surface for MSS is a hexagon inscribed within the cylinder. See
Arthur P. Boresi and Richard J. Schmidt, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 2003, Sec. 4.4.