CHAPTER 6 Combined Stress Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design 6.1 INTRODUCTION I avert failure is a Predicting failure and establishing a geometry that relatively simple matter if the machine part is subjected to a static uniaxial State of stress. It is necessary only to have available the simple uniaxial stress-strain curve for the material of interest, which can be readily obtained from one or a few simple tension and compression experiments. For example, if yielding has been established as the governing failure mode for a uniaxially stressed machine part under consideration, failure would be predic ‘occur when the maximum normal stress in the part reaches the level of the Yield point determined from the stress-strain curve established in the simple tension test experiment. 1e machine part under consideration is subjected to a biaxial or a triaxial state of stress, however, the prediction of failure is far more difficult. No longer can one predict yielding, for example, when the maximum normal stress reaches the tensile yield point because the other normal stress compo rents may also influence yielding. Furthermore, there is not one or a few. s that can be performed to characterize failure in the ess. A large number of complex multiaxial tests would be r in which all of the stress components would be varied over thei ‘entire range of values in all possible combinations, and even then it would be} difficult to assess the influence of outside factors such as stress concentration, temperature, and environment. Such a testing program would be prohibitively costly and time-consuming, and perhaps not even possible for certain states of stress. When engineers face a problem of this complexity, their inclination is always to attempt to develop a theory that relates behavior situation to beh: imple easily evaluated test throt istic “modul sn one desires to predi part subjected to am of stress, it is usual relates failure in the multiaxial state of stress to failure by the same mode in a] 16 Inwodvction 127 simple tension test through a well chosen “modulus” such as stress, strain, or ‘energy. To be useful such moduli must be calculable in the multiaxial state of stress and readily measurable in the simple uniaxial evaluation test. ‘The basic assumption that constitutes the framework for all combined stress failure theories is that failure is predicted 10 occur when the maximum alu of the selected mechanical modulus in the multiaxial state of stress becomes equal 10 or exceeds the value of the same modulus that produces failure in a simple uniaxial stress test using the same material To further vessel o, in the longitudinal dire se resulting in (5-89) and ‘magnitude of the maximum normal stress, pressure. One could also select a coupon of the same material, subj general framework upon which 1 failure theory for this case of stress in the pressure vessel wall as follows: Failure is predicted to occur if the calculated value of (@,)max for the biaxial state of stress in the pressure vessel wall becomes equal to of exceeds oj, the failure value of the maximum normal stress in the simple tension tes Experimentation with a variety of materials would show that the theory works el for ceriin materials but not very well for others. Such attempisto devise failure theories and experimentally verify them has led to many failure theory Propotal, six of which are presented inthis chapter ae summarize, the development of any useful combined stress failure ory must contain three essential ingredients: cable model, describable by explicit mathemati- loading to the stresses, strains, the critical point in the multi- determined in a simple uniaxial Many combined str ymbined stress failure theories that contain these essential ingredients have been postulated. Six of these theories are presented, in detail, in theSree ES eer ere TrR ESTEE ER CTEESETR TEE Eo OIRO TOTES EERSETE CEE EEEEEECEEECETEESE following sections, including 1. Maximum normal stress theory, 2. Maximum shearing stress theory, 3. Maximum normal strain theory, 4, Total strain energy theory, Some of these are presented for their historical interest and to indicate imitations red the development of other more accurate combined stress theories of failure, Others are presented because they represent the best theories currently available. 62 MAXIMUM NORMAL STRESS THEORY (RANKINE’S THEORY) In words, the maximum normal stress theory, proposed by Rankine, may be expressed as follows: Failure is predicted to occur in the multiaxial state of stress when the maximum principal normal stress becomes equal to or exceeds the maximum normal stress fat the time of failure in a simple uniaxial stress test using a specimen of the ‘same material. ‘The general triaxial state of stress at a point may be fully described by the ses and their directions, as was shown in Chapter the only nonzero normal stress component is a the direction of the appl jepends on the failure mode of in o thing else, depending on the the multiaxially stressed cally formulated from the word statement above as follows: Failure is predicted by the maximum normal stress theory 10 occur if 424, 220, > 0, 50 So Sa (1) yhere 0, 0», and 0, are the principal normal stresses; o, is the uniaxial failure 1¢ uniaxial failure strength in compressi ry may be represented grapl the cubical element represent outside the cube would be pi -0,-0, coordinate origin. Evaluation of the proposed maximum normal observation that the prediction the maximum normal compor theory leads to the the magnitude of, , if one examines the Felton (outside) inside) Faire surface JURE 6.1. Graphical representation of the maximum normal stress theory of forthe general multiaxial state of stress.130 Combined Strese Theorie of Failure and Their Use in Design ‘case of hydrostatic ither tension or compression, this theory predicts yielding failure when becomes equal to the stress theory predicts the onset of yi ‘or compression when the principal stress 0 reaches the simple tensile yield point o,, for the material. Much experimental evidence that pure hye ;pression does not produce any pl in a comy amorphous solid, but only a small elastic co . it has also been shown experimentally hy luce any plastic flow or yielding € as a theory for predicting the onset of yielding, the maximum normal stress theory is generally poor. For materials that behave in a ductile fashion, one would not use the maximum normal theory. ‘materials the maximum normal stress theory 63 MAXIMUM SHEARING STRESS THEORY (TRESCA-GUEST THEORY) In words, the maximum shearing stress theory, proposed by Tresca in about 1865 and experimentally supported by Guest about 1900, may be expressed as Failure is predicted to occur in the multiaxial state of stress when the maximum shearing stress magnitude becomes equal to or exceeds the maximum shearing stress magnitude at the failure in a simple uniaxial stress test using a specimen of the same mat \s observed in Chapter 4 that the maximum shearing stress magnitude at is the largest in magnitude of the three principal shearing stresses given in (4-55), (4-56), and (4-57). For a uniaxial stress test the only nonzero normal stress component is a principal stress in the direction of the applied at the time (62) With these observations in mind the maximum shearing stress theory may be ‘Hydrostatic stress it defined as the state of stress in which all three principal stresses are equal. Maximum Shearing Stress Theory (Treta-Guest Theory) 13 mathematically formulated from the word statement as follows: Failure is predicted by the maximum shearing stress theory to occur if 3) Utilizing (4-55), (4-56), and (4-57) together with (6-2), we can formulate the maximum shearing stress theory in terms of principal normal stresses as follows: Failure is predicted by the maximum shearing stress theory to occur if les oi 2 lol (4) where o,, 63, and o5 are the principal normal stress and o, is the uniaxial failure strength in ten princi axes. It may be observed thi stress that lie within the cylinder are points of no failure, wh outside the cylinder are predicted to cause failure. In co may be noted that the maxim therefore i always in the region of no nee, yeding would predicted to occur under a hydrostatic state of sts Experimentally, hydrostatic compression of engineering metals to very hgh ‘been observed to produce no tension, tact sess nearly ti hydrostatic engineering metals under hydrostatic states of stress, especially with respect to yielding and ductile behavior. Experimental evidence for other states of stress verifies that ‘ment with experimental d: stress,FIGURE 62. Graphical representation of the maximum shearing stress theory of failure for the general multiaxial state of stress. 64 MAXIMUM NORMAL STRAIN THEORY (ST. VENANT'S THEORY) In words, the maximum normal strain theory, proposed by St. Venant, may be expressed as follows: predicted to occur in the multiaxial state of stress when the maximum ‘normal strain becomes equal to or exceeds the maximum normal strain ilure in a simple uniaxial stress test using a specimen of the The generalized Hooke’s law equations of (5-33), which may be summarized as 1 am glan rg tox)] (5) Maximum Normal Stain Theory (St. Vesants Theory) 133, Utilizing these expressions, we may mathemat normal strain theory from the word statemé Failure is predicted by the maximum normal strain theory to occur if formulate the maximum, azy ay one 6 as-y as my as-y Expressing the strains of (6-7) in terms of stresses, the maximum normal strain theory becomes: Failure is predicted by the maximum normal strain theory to occur if 0, — (0, + 05) = a by the maximum normal 6.3. In this case the failure‘Total Strain Energy Theory Beltrami Theory) 135 134 Combined Stres Theories of Failure and Theit Use in Design rolume dx-dy-dz under the infl ted strains may be computed by employing the loss-free which asserts that the total strain energy U; stored ust equal the work W done on the element; that is, Up=W (69) the mean force multiplied by the distance general energy € jn the volume element ‘The work W may be expressed through which it acts, if the linear. Thus the work may be wri S)a (10) ied force, Fis the final applied force, and d is the force moves. Recognizing that the final force in ss, multiplied by the area on which it acts, I force is zero, and that the distance through which the force moves is al deformation of the volume element in the 0, direction, the work associated with the application of the stress aided: r= (22 )igae wn 9), may be equated to total strain energy stored as a f the application of a, alone. Thus, Fite rte oF dey de (12) The total strain energy per unit volume attributable to the application of 0; ‘lone may then be obtained by dividing (6-12) by the volume to yield FIGURE 63. Graphical representation of the maximum normal strain theory failure forthe general multiaxial state of stress. ie 9 Where u, is total strain energy per unit volume stored as a result of the F *Pplication of, expressions for strain energy pet unit vol 65 TOTAL STRAIN ENERGY THEORY (BELTRAMI THEORY) In words, the total strain energy theory, proposed by Beltrami about 18 (14), may be expressed as follows: a4 Failure is predicted to occur in the multaxal state of stress when the total strain = 28 (19 to oF exceeds the total strain energy Pet i 2 in a simple uniaxial stress test using & + Neslecting higher order terms, we find the total strain energy per unit specimen of the same materi136 Combined Stress Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design, volume stored as a result of the simultaneous application of o,, 03, and 0, may be obtained by summing (6-1 (6-16) or (17) “The strains ¢, in (6-17) may be expressed as functions of the three principal stresses by employing the Hooke's law equations of (6-5). Thus the complete energy per unit volume may be written as + 02 + 02 — 2v(a,0, + 6,0; + 050,)] (6-18) Aegon of 0 fal FIGURE 64. Graphical representation of the total strain energy theory of failure for the general multiaxial state of stress. Distortion Energy Theory (Huber-Von Mises-Hencky Theory) 137 failure, equal to the failure strength o,, and the corresponding value of total strain energy wy, becomes y= (7) 19) Utilizing these last two expressions, we may mathematically formulate the total strain energy theory of failure from the word statement as follows: Failure is predicted by the total strain energy theory to occur if Mp2 ry (6-20) wit [ott ftaf— Monto +o0)] 27 (621) Since Hooke’s law has been used, this theory is limited in v range, just as the maximum normal is the equation of an el sd in Figure 6.4. As for the other failure theories, the in the ellipsoidal surface represents states of stress that would be predicted by this theory to result in nonfailure, whereas points outside the failure surface would be predicted to result in failure. It may be noted that the closed failure surface predicts failure for hydrostatic states of stress and, to this extent at least, is in disagreement with experimental observations. This theory of failure is not used by designers but is of historical significance in the development of the widely used distortion energy theory described in Section 6.6. 66 DISTORTION ENERGY THEORY (HUBER-VON MISES-HENCKY THEORY) In words, the distortion energy theory, proposed first in 1904 by Huber with later contributions by Von Mises and Hencky, may be expressed as follows: Failure is predicted to occur in the multiaxial state of stress when the distortion ‘energy per unit volume becomes equal to or exceeds the distortion energy per lunit volume at the time of failure in a simple uniaxial stress test using a specimen of the same material The distortion energy theory was developed as an improvement over the total Strain energy theory, accounting for the experimental observation that hydro- Static states of stress are not properly assessed by the total strain energy theory. In developing the distortion energy theory, the postulate was made that the total strain energy can be divided into two parts: the energy associated solely with change in volume, termed dilatation energy, and the energy associated solely with change in shape, termed distortion energy. It was further postulated that failure, particularly under conditions of ductile138 Combined Stress Theorie of Failure and Their Use in Design, behavior, is related only to the distortion energy, with no contribution from the dilatation energy. ‘To develop an expression for the distortion energy, a volume element subjected to principal stresses ‘and @; may be represented as shown Figure 6.5, where the principal stress vectors are divided into two parallel ‘components One of these components, S, is equal in magnitude for te directions. We may write Stof=o, S+of=o, (6-22) In these expressions the stress component Sis equal in all three directions and is, therefore, properly described as a hydrostatic stress component. The hydrostatic stress components act to change the volume and are the sole contributors to dilatation energy as just defined. ‘Again referring to Figure 6.5, we find the total volume change produced by state of stress depicted at the left of the figure may be calculated jolume clement of dimensions dx-dj-dz. For rained volume V, would be V, = dedy de (623) Alter subjecting the clement to the 04-240) stress field, strains of e, 3, and ey ‘would be produced in the x, , and z directions respectively. The final volume V, of the strained element, neglecting higher order terms, would be V, = dx dy de + eydx(dy dz) + &,dy(de dz) + ede(dxdy) (6-24) Stofme, element the original uns FIGURE 65. Principal stresses on an element represented as dilatation and distor- tion components. Distortion Energy Theory (HuberVon MiseHencky Theory) 138 whence Vp m dx dyde(1 +e +0, +85) (6-28) The change in volume AV then would be AV = V,~ V, = dedyde[(1 + 6, +6; +6) 1] (6-26) To express the volume change on a per unit volume basis, the expression of (6-26) is divided by dx-dy-dz to give the change in volume per unit volume Av as du=eqtate (627) Employing Hooke's law to express the strains in terms of stresses, we may write (6-27) as Av = Elo, + +0) —20(0, + +) (628) 1-2 E Referring now to the state of stress as depicted at the right side of Figure 6.5, by the development leading to (6- ve write the change in volume per unit volume Av, as result of $ acting alone as by sete, te 23s, (630) ‘Again utilizing Hooke’s law, this expression may be writen in terms of stress as Av= (0, + 0, + 05) (629) 1-2 E Since the stress component S has been postulated to be the only contribu- ‘or to volume change on the right-hand side of the equality in Figure 6.5, and since the entre volume change for the left-hand side of Figure 6.5 is given in (629), the expressions of (6-29) and (6-31) must be equal; hence, 1-2» -2» (01 +0 +) = 5038) (632) av, = 3{ B18 - (8+ 5)]} = (Qs) (631) Solving for the value of $ to make the original postulate true, we get +0; + % 3 Thus, ifthe stress component $ is to account for the volume-changing portion Se (6-33) Of the stress field, it must be equal in magnitude to the arithmetic mean of the three principal ton th this evaluation of S completed, the next task is to write an expression strain energy per unit volume under the influence of stress field unit volume associated . The difference #3 and another expression for strain ener with volume change only, as a result of S140 Combined Suess Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design Il necessarily be the energy associated solely total strain energy per unit volume has between these two expressions «3 — 2v( 040, + 48 + 0405)] (634) rain energy associated with volume lume-changing (6-34) to give (635) or _ 3-2) uy aE S (6-36) Utilizing equation (6-33), we may write the volume-changing strain energy ty, in terms of the principal stresses as 30-2) fatatoP Cee om ‘As anticipated, then, the distortion energy pet unit volume u, may be written as ug = up wy (6-38) or, from (6-34) and (6-37), 1 2402 uss sglot + of + of — 2H(0y02 + 0305+ 0105)] 30-2») patate? = oa aI 3 = (6-39) which may be written more compactly as + (a 4) +(a- 0,)"] (640) (641) ‘With all of these expressions at hand, the distortion energy theory of failure may be mathematically formulated from the word statement of the theory as ure is predieted by the distortion energy theory to occur if S(o.= op + (a 9) + (os 00)"] 2 oF (6-42) Distortion Energy Theory (Huber-Von Miser Hencky Theory) 141 = o)° + (9,~ 05) + (0) 0,)* ire mathematically as follows: 10 occur if (0,~ 0) + (0, ~ 05)? + (05~ 04)? 2 2o? xactly equivalent to the Failure prediction in the triaxial state of stress by the distortion energy theory may be graphically represented by the sketch of Figure 66. ‘maximum shearing stress theory, hi the hydrostati *See pp. 99-105 of ref. 1.142 Combined Stress Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design FIGURE 66, Graphical representation of the distortion energy theory of failure for the general multiaxial state of stress. 67 FAILURE THEORY COMPARISON IN BIAXIAL STATE OF STRESS signs of the princi , f the second and fourth quadrants where the principal stresses are of oppo Mohs Faure Theory 143 FIGURE 67. Comparison 2 Joseph Marin, Mechani ‘Adapted by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Ciiffs, New Jersey.) sign. Experimental investigations support the prediction of the maximum Normal stress theory for brittle behavior and the distortion energy theory or ‘maximum shearing stress theory for ductile behavior. The other theories are less accurate and seldom used. Some supporting data for these conclusions ‘re shown in Figure 6.8. 68 MOHR’S FAILURE THEORY The Mobr theory posed by Otto Mohr in 1900, san extension Of the maximum sl yess ¢ tress theory of failure based on an interpretationPs Brite mater 110} —-- = et 1 0 Bre L o! cont itor 1 (en ish a in i i 4 L r t oe FIGURE 68. Comparison of biaxi variety of ductile and brittle materials. oe strength data with theories of failure for Mobs Failure Theory 145 FIGURE 69, Mohr’s stress circles for a triaxial state of stress. cory is conveniently s centered at C, and ing the state of stress along the other two be found that the normal and shearing ‘components acting on any plane through the point will lie in the shaded of the 7-0 plane, including its boundaries. The center positions along the *Deseribed, for exa Strength of Materials, Part I, by S. Timoshenko, D. Van Nostrand, New York, 1958, p. 40.146 Combined Strest Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design o axis of Figure 6.9 are to 6 2 ate a5 (646) aes q-%t “The rei ofthe thee circles are 22% aa 2s R= (6-47) ya Referring again to the 1-0 plot of Figure 6.9, consider an arbitrary vertical line M-N. All points on this line represent a constant normal stress 0, and all the shaded area, including its boundaries. For the ‘maximum 7 that can occur at the point assumes failure to be governed by the such as M-N the critical value of + ‘on the largest circle, Mohr asserted in his theory, therefore, to determine the failure condition, the results of these Figure 6.104. The simple tests were plotied on a Je 0-4,,, is obtained for yielding in the tensile test, the ‘he compression test, and Ov, for yielding in the envelope circle is constructed to lie tangent , above and below. By so doing, a failure 1 to lie outside the envelope circles on the 1- plane as shown ‘The Mohr theory of failure may now be stated as follows: tate of stress when the largest specimens of the same material If the Mohr theory were plotted for the multiaxial state of stress, the failure’ Mob’ Failure Theory 147 o FIGURE 6.10, Failure region for the Mohr theory based on results of « uniaxial tension tet, uniaxial compression test, and a torsional shear test. Maximum shearing stress theory. Howev the legs of the hexagon would be of unc ‘comparison in the o,-0, plane for the bi It may be observes tensile properties of a mat Yielding is the failure mode, Mobr’s theory mi ‘raphical form or in the form of a computer-augmented numericalCombined Stess Failure Theores as Design Tools 14 148 Combined Stress Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design 69 SUMMARY OF FAILURE THEORY EVALUATION Evaluation of the six failure theories discussed in this chapter in light of experimental evidence leads to the following observations: 1, For isotropic materials that fail by brittle fracture, the maximum normal stress theory is the best theory to use. 2. For materials that fail by brittle fracture but exhibit a compressive ultimate strength that is significant ent from the tensile ultimate the best theory to use. sropic materials that fail by yielding or ductile rupture, the jon energy theory is the best theory to use. 4. For isotropic materials that fail by yielding or ductile rupture, the maximum shearing stress theory is almost as good as the distortion energy theory. 5, For materials that fail by yielding but exhibit a compressive yield strength that is significantly different from the tensile yield strength, Mohr's theory is a good theory to use. 6, Asarule of thumb, the maximum normal stress theory would be used for isotropic materials that exhibit a ductility of less than 5 percent elonga- tion in 2 inches, and either the distortion energy theory or maximum. shearing stress theory would be used for isotropic materials that exhibit a ductility of 5 percent or more in a 2-inch gage length. Where possible, a fracture mechanics analysis should be performed. o 610 COMBINED STRESS FAILURE THEORIES AS DESIGN TOOLS Having now examined several combined stress failure theories, it is pertinent to consider how one would use such Designers are interested in averting ing how close to incipient failure he should design the part to operate. In making such a decision it must be recognized that some parts should be designed for infinite life, some parts should be designed for a finite le, and sometimes the design is time dependent. It is also important to Role that the margin between operating stress levels and failure strengths Must be decided with due regard for the many uncertainties associated with ’s; loading configurations; accuracy of assumed physical ‘models relating load, material, and failure response; and 3. A designer might integrate these considerations by proceeding ‘hrough the following steps: FIGURE 6.11, Maximum shearing stress theory compared to Mohr’s Theory for. biaxial state of stress. (a) Maximum shearing stress theory (ductile). (b} Mohr's uct). Mobs theory (brittle). and the compressive and ferent, a modified Mohr’s Further, if the material behavior is properties of the material are signifi seems to give the best general agree experimental data. The cal modification, shown in Figure involves a linear extension of failure boundary into the second and fourth quadrants, to a value of —" with a linear connection then made with —9, as shown. 1. Examine the design specifications and proposed configuration to de- termine which failure mode or failure modes probably govern the design.REESE TEs eT TOS TE TREES TEES EEE SE SESE SE TOES ESIC TE SESEESES EE MESNE TES OE SI SE TIERS EEETICEETIEEEE 2. Determine the material strength properties that are direct 6. Transform the applicable failure theory into a design theory by using the ty and inserting the design stress in lieu of failure strength, 7. Determine the geometry of the machine part from the design theory. Frequently this step is an procedure. 8. Fabricate, test, modify, and experimentally develop the configuration of the machine part until it performs its function reliably and is compatible with all design constraints, including such considerations as, weight, cost, aesthetic appeal, etc. While most of these steps are self-explanatory, the process of selecting a safety factor consistent with the constraints on the design is important either on the high side or small, the machine part will fe safety factor is picked too itive. Judgment in the proper selection of 1 safety factor is enhanced by experience and a good working Knowledge of the limitations on the models and mathematical techniques 1, The acciracy with which the loads, forces, or other failure-inducing agents can be determined. 2. The accuracy with which the stress determined from the forces or othe 3. The accuracy with which the failu ‘modulus can be determined for mode. 4. The need to conserve material, weight, space, or dollars. other mechanical moduli can be lure-inducing agents. rength or other mechanical failure ‘material in the appropriate failure 5, The seriousness of the consequences of failure in terms of human life and/or property damage. 6. The quality of workmanship in manufacture. ;. The quality of maintenance available or possible during operation. ‘An average value for the safety factor is about 2. This value would be modified, either up or down, depending on the assessment of each of the eight ed. the failure mode, and determining the mensions may be established. Failure theories properly evaluated are, there- ,, among the most important links in the design process. 6.11 USING THE IDEAS ‘as indicated in the sketch. racket are ASTM Class AISI 1020 steel. Table 6.1. Properties for three candidate materials Class 60 Grade 35018 Alsi Property Gray Iron Malleable Iron _ 1020 Steel 60,000 53,000 60,000 170,000 220,000 48,000 35,000 43,000 45,000 20,500 <05 is 38154 Combined Stas Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design Using the Ideas 155, that then become 0, = 51,500 psi a=0 (656) 0, = ~ 19,670 psi oa Fee (10,9001) «51,650 pa « =) point D the only nonzero stress component is 7,,,s0 the stress re _ Fae, (100,000)(4)(2 Po toy 2 Ew Foe = MOOV OE) 51,830 pst (6-49) " a : a +0(-73) <0 (51) or At critical point D of Figure 6.12, it may be calculated that ce re adagg 2 AE w $0000 a from which the thee solons are reduat" 5 4 . Sen a=0 (659) ‘ac _ 100,000(4)(2) TT" tay") ole (651) ‘and numerical values for the principal stresses at point D become (2) ee =0 (660) Since these shear components may be added directly, eon = 10,610 + 31,830 = 42,440 psi (6-52) * fess analyses complete, the three cai To implement use of any of the combined stress failure theories it is necessary to determine the principal normal stresses, which may be done by utilizing the general stress cubic equation (4-23) at each critical point of interest, that is, at A and D. For critical point 4 the only nonzero stress components are , and 1,y, 80 the stress cubic reduces to ‘maximum difference between principal normal stresses). Considering the class 60 gray cast iron, a brittle material, we find that the o— 0%, +013, =0 (653) maximum normal stress theory of (6-1) state, using numerical values just 7 sete, ta fares predicted to acer by brite rate at etic point A o(0? - 00, + 13) = 0 (654) 51,500 2 60,000 Utilizing the quadratic formula, then, the three solutions are 0 = 60,000 1) — 19,670 2 60,000 mL orig aye 7) 51,500 < ~ 170,000 (655) 0s ~170,000 (6-62) aa ~ 19,670 < ~ 170,000 eee hf these equations, the first one of (6-61) is clearly the governing equation, it does not predict failure. Also from (6-60), the maximum normal stress cme at critical point D than for critical point A. Thus, failure would not Substituting numerical values from (6-48) and (6-45), these principal stressespredicted 10 occur by yielding at critical point D if $ [042.440 — 07 + (0 + 42,440)? + (— 42,440 — 42,4409] > (43,000)? (6 orf > 1.85 x 10” co predicted. If the te that failure is 5 and the conclusion is that ‘maximum shear theory of predicted to occur by yieldin [42,440 — 0} > 43,000 (0 + 42,440] > 43,000 (6-66) | = 42,440 ~ 42,440] > 43,000 ‘Thus, from the third of these equations failure is clearly predicted, which is ‘on the 7-0 plane, the Mi points A and D, referring to the stat ircles representing 1! standard techniques of Mohr's circle construction* ress, as depicted in Figure 6.12. Since the Mobr’s "See, for example, p. 135 of ref. 8 Using the Ideas 157 GURL Yj / / T9670 31850 FIGURE 6:13, Mohr’s theory solution to cable support bracket problem using grade 35018 malleable both critical point 4 and critical point D exceed the failure is predicted and a redesign is necessary if to be used. ‘well be concluded that the class 60 gray this application, if a section size increase safety factor. To pursue this, it may be ified to give the desi158 Combined Stress Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design deduced that, for a safety factor of 2, the part must be sized to give * (6-67) ag, = £0,000 = = > = 30,000 psi (6-68) where a, is the design stress desired. Carrying this result back to (6-5), then, ano = + * +0 (669) Fe Facy an tee fey (6-70) Since J = 21 and a = 21, this may be rewritten as Fe 3]. (L+vS) Fe on [t+ vive] =(4 )# (on) p= MPAA) | 517881 a (nd*/64) ed? © (51-78(100,000)(2) 3 gay SEB 8 70 “=(30,000) ‘Thus the design recommendation would be to make the cable support bracket of class 60 gray iron with a 4.79-inch diameter for the cylindrical portion. As a final caution, recall that stress concentration effects have been neglected and should be included, as discussed later in Chapter 12. Further, critical points in locations other than the cylindrical portion of the bracket should also be id and investigated. = 4.79 inches (6-73) QUESTIONS 1. Explain why it is often necessary for a designer to utilize a failure theory. re the essential attributes of any useful failure theory? 3. What is the basic assumption that constitutes the framework for all failure theories? 4, State, in words only and also mathematically, the definition of failure according to the maximum normal stress theory of failure. Questions 159 5, State, in words only and also mathematic definition of failure ‘aecording to the maximum shear stress theory of 6. Define or describe what is meant by the term distortion energy. 7, Derive an equation by means of which distortion energy may be calcu- 8. State, according to the distortion energy theory of failure. 9. Summarize the con failure noted in problems 10. (a) Write in words a “first strain invariant” theory of failure. Be com- plete and precise. (b) Derive a complete mathematical expression for your “first strain in- variant” theory of failure, expressing the final result in terms of principal stresses and material properties. Recall that 1,= first strain invariant = e,+ 6, + & (©) How could you establish the validity of this theory of failure? circular cross section is subjected to a pure torsional the diameter of the shaft corresponding to incipient inder the torque M, by (a) the maximum norm: (©) maximum shearing stress theory, and (0) the distortion (@) Find the ratio of the diameters predicted by the maximum shearing stress theory and distortion energy theory to that predicted by the maximum normal stress theory. 12, The solid cylindrical cantilever bar shown in Figure Q6.12 is subjected to pure torsional moment T about the z axis, pure bending moment M, about the y axis, and pure tensile force P along the x axis all at the same time. The material is a ductile aluminum alloy.160 Combined Stress Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design salecting. stress concentra- ent of volume, carefully labeled, showing all stress vector (©) Carefully explain how you would determine whether to expect yielding at into appropriate design th the conditions under which a designer should use each of these design theories. 14. Pick three machine parts with which you are familiar and decide, on the factor, what an -T6 aluminum. (6,, = 24,000 © (op = 25.000 psi, 10,000 psi 42,000 psi FIGURE Q615. actuator may be adequately ‘an axial force P of 10,000 I a bending moment M, = 1500 in-Ib, and a torsional moment T= 4000 If it is proposed to use a I-inch-diameter bar of 7075-T6 aluminum (0,, = FIGURE Q6.16, 72,000 psi, 0, = 82,000 psi, e = 11 percent in 2 inches), what would this member? Give a clear and complete at ry step. ting what you are doing ‘An aircraft wing flap housing is made of cast magnesium alloy AZ63A-T4 (a, = 14,000 {40,000 psi, e = 12 percent in 2 inches). At the suspected critical point it has been calculated that the state of stress is as shown in Figure Q6.17. Would you predict failure ofthe part by yi ‘A 4340 steel bar of I-inch-diameter solid cireular cross section is fat-treated and drawn at 1000°F to give a Brinell Hardness Number (BHN) 9, = 15000 es ay * 10.000 ps‘162 Combined Stress Theories of Failure and Their Use in Design References 163 of 377. If this bar is simultaneously subjected to a pure torsional moment of (b) Give your best estimate of how much overpressure could be tolerated before a local blowout would be expected. (© Recommend a wall thickness that you would consider to provide a safe design for this machine part bending moment ind under loading conditions. Determine the factor of safety on yielding for this REFERENCES, + Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids, Vol. 1, McGraw Hil, New York, 1950. 6 20 inches long, has a cylindrical cross » Mechanical Behavior of Engineering Materials, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cis, ied at one end as a cantilever beam. At vertical downward bending force of 250 ‘ : Poakowsti, N. HL, and Ripting. EJ, Singh and Scare of Enginring Mati, 1b and a torsional moment about the cylinder axis of 4700 in-lb. Neglect Frentice Hal, Eplewood Cif Ne 156, 4. Soin RC, EninrngConieration of Sires, Sn York, 1967. eo, S, Sieg of Materia, Part I, Van Nonand, New York, 1982 6 Drucker, D.C, Jnrodacon to Mechanics of Delrmatie Sls, McGraw, New York, toe 1. Mendelson, Ax Plastic: Thon and Appisation, Macrilan Co, New York, 1968. 8, Crandall S.H, and Dab, N.C, An Inrodection tothe Mechs of Sls, McGraw Hl and Sirength, McGraw-Hill, New [New York, 1959. 9. McAdam, aking, W. H., “Influence of Plastic Extension and Compression on the Fractre Stress. ASTM 1947 preprint; McAdam, J, Jt, Gel G. M, and Mebs, R. W., “Influence of Plastic Deformation, Combined Streses and Low eric Stel,” Metals Technology (August 1947), “The Technical Cohesive Strength of Meals in Terms of Principal tresses." Motos Techoogy (December 1944), 22, A round, hollow tubular member is to be designed to fulfill the dual funetion Providing power to a rotating test chamber and also a pipe providing 5000 psi air to the chamber. The hollow shaft igured and supported so that The material to strength of this rical wall: sel that would just prevent but be on the verge of yielding,