 Why do parts fail?

 You may say “Parts fail because their stresses exceed their strength”
 Then what kind of stresses cause the failure: Tensile? Compressive?
Shear?
 Answer may be: It depends.
 It depends on the material and its relative strength in compressive,
tension, and shear.
 It also depends on the type loading (Static, Fatigue, Impact) and
 presence of the cracks in the material
 The failure may be elastic or fracture
 Elastic failure results in excessive deformation, which makes the machine
component unfit to perform its function satisfactorily
 Fracture results in breaking the component into two parts

 Question: How do one compare stresses induced to the material

properties?

 Generally machine parts are subjected to combined loading and to find material
properties under real loading condition is practically not economical
 Thus, material properties are obtained from simple tension/torsion test

 Theories of failure provide a relationship between the strength of

machine component subjected to complex state of stress with the
material properties obtained from simple test (Tensile)

Strength of machine Strength of standard

component subjected component
to complex state of subjected to uniaxial
stress state of stress
 Loads are assumed to not vary over time
 Failure theories that apply to:
 Ductile materials
 Brittle materials

 Why do we need different theories ??

Stress-strain curve of a ductile

material Stress-strain curve of a brittle
material

 Ductility is the degree to which a material will deform before ultimate

fracture.
 Percent elongation is used as a measure of ductility.
 Ductile Materials have %E  5%
 Brittle Materials have %E < 5%
 For machine members subject to repeated or shock or impact loads,
materials with %E > 12% are recommended.
 STRAIN FAILURES
 A static load is a stationary force or
couple applied to a member.
 Failure can mean a part has
separated into two or more pieces;
has become permanently distorted,
thus ruining its geometry; has had
its reliability downgraded; or has
had its function compromised,
whatever the reason.

 Ideally, in designing any machine element, the engineer should have

available the results of a great many strength tests of the particular
material chosen.
 More often than not, it is necessary to design using only published
values of yield strength, ultimate strength, percentage reduction in
area, and percentage elongation.
 TENSION TEST

Failure along
principal shear
stress plane

Failure along
principal normal
stress plane

Why nearly 0o ??

COMPRESSION TEST

Does not
“fail”
Shear failure

Why doesn’t it fail ?? Why does it fail ??
Why nearly 45o ??
Failure along principal shear stress plane Failure along principal normal
stress plane

 In general, ductile, isotropic materials are limited by their shear

strengths.
 Brittle materials are limited by their tensile strengths.
 If cracks are present in a ductile material, it can suddenly fracture
at nominal stress levels well below its yield strength, even under
static loads.
 Static loads are slowly applied and remain constant with time.
 Dynamic loads are suddenly applied (impact), or repeatedly
varied with time (fatigue), or both.

 In dynamic loading, the distinction between failure

mechanisms of ductile and brittle materials blurs.
 Ductile materials often fail like brittle materials in dynamic
loading.
 Accepted failure theories that apply to ductile materials:
 Total strain energy theory
 Distortion energy theory
 Pure shear-stress theory
 Maximum shear-stress theory
 Maximum normal stress theory (limited application)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s-1ZP5G_NE

Accepted failure theories that apply to brittle materials:

• Maximum normal stress theory (even material)

• Maximum normal stress theory (uneven material)
• Coulomb-Mohr theory
• Modified Mohr theory

 This predicts that failure of machine component, subjected to complex loading,

occurs if the maximum normal principal stress tends to exceeds the uniaxial
tensile yield (ductile) or the ultimate tensile strength (brittle) of the material
 Providing a square failure boundary with Sy as the principal stress for ductile
materials
 Note: not a safe theory for ductile materials

Exercise:
Draw failure
envelop for
two dimension
case?
 Let 1, 2, 3 are the principal stresses at the critical point in
component due to applied loading, and let 1> 2> 3
 Then failure occurs when

If we want to include uncertainty of data available and

loads acting on the component, i.e., factor of safety, then
to avoid failure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMy7TBoeax0

This theory states that a material subjected to any combination of loads will fail (by
yielding or fracturing) whenever the maximum shear stress exceeds the shear
strength (yield or ultimate) of the material. The shear strength, in turn, is usually
assumed to be determined from the standard uniaxial tension test.

Exercise:
Draw
hexagonal
failure
envelop
for two
dimesion
case?
 Ductile materials: maximum shear-stress theory

This theory states that failure occurs when:

(Failure occurs when maximum Mohr’s circle:

pure tension
shear stress
exceeds the shear stress at
yield in pure tension)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecHsyX3maWs

Ductile materials: maximum shear-stress theory

Providing a hexagonal failure envelope that is more conservative

than the distortion energy theory
Total strain energy U: Ductile materials
1
𝑈 𝜎𝜀
2

Elastic range
assuming stress
strain curve is linear
upto yield point

1 1
𝑈 𝜎𝜀 𝜎𝜀 𝜎𝜀 𝜎𝜀 1
2 2 𝜀 𝜎 𝜐𝜎 𝜐𝜎
where 𝐸
1
𝜀 𝜎 𝜐𝜎 𝜐𝜎
𝐸
Principal stresses and strains 1
𝜀 𝜎 𝜐𝜎 𝜐𝜎
𝐸
https://youtu.be/CoVTXoKUKBE?t=301

Ductile materials: total strain energy

Using previous expressions, total energy is:

1 1
𝑈 𝜎𝜀 𝜎 𝜎2 𝜎3 2𝜐 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎
2 2𝐸 1

which can be expressed as 𝑈 𝑈 𝑈

Hydrostatic energy Deformation energy

3 1 2𝜐 1 𝜐
𝑈 𝜎 2
𝑈 𝜎1 𝜎2 𝜎3
2 𝐸 3𝐸
𝜎𝜎 𝜎
𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎
𝜎
3
Obtained by setting: Obtained by setting:
𝑈 𝑈 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝑈 𝑈 𝑈
 Ductile materials: distortion energy theory

1 𝜐
𝑈 𝜎1 𝜎2 𝜎3 𝜎𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎
3𝐸

If uniaxial yield stress state (failure state):

Therefore:

1 𝜐 Using uniaxial yield

𝑈 𝑆
3𝐸 𝑦 stress state (failure
state)

Ductile materials: distortion energy theory

For any other state of stresses:

1 𝜐
𝑈 𝜎1 𝜎2 𝜎3 𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎
3𝐸

Failure criterion is obtained by setting:

1 𝜐 1 𝜐
𝜎1 𝜎2 𝜎3 𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎 𝑆
3𝐸 3𝐸 𝑦

Distortion energy: Distortion energy:

any other state of uniaxial stress at
stresses yield

1 2 3 𝑦
 Ductile materials: distortion energy theory

𝑦 1 2 3

For a 2D stress where 𝜎2= 0, 𝑦 1 3

• The 2D distortion
energy equation is
described in an
ellipse
• The interior of the
ellipse show the
biaxial safe stress
sage against yielding
under static loads

Ductile materials: distortion energy theory

Von Mises effective stress

2
𝑦 1 2 3

Definition:
(Yield surface)
1 2 3

von Mises effective stress

von Mises effective stress:

uniaxial stress that would
create the same distortion
energy as is created by
actual combination of
applied stresses
DISTORTION ENERGY THEORY (DET)

 The failure theory based on

distortion energy is also
known as von Mises-Hencky

Yield strength of the

material

von Mises
effective stress

Source: GT
Source: GT

Ductile & brittle materials

 Either the maximum-shear-stress theory
or the distortion-energy theory is
acceptable for design and analysis of
materials that would fail in a ductile
manner.
 For design purposes the maximum-
shear-stress theory is easy, quick to use,
and conservative.
 If the problem is to learn why a part failed,
then the distortion-energy theory may be
the best to use.
 For ductile materials with unequal yield
strengths, Syt in tension and Syc in
compression, the Mohr theory is the best
available.
Brittle materials have true strain at
fracture is 0.05 or less.
 In the first quadrant the data appear
on both sides and along the failure
curves of maximum-normal-stress,
Coulomb-Mohr, and modified Mohr. All
failure curves are the same, and data
fit well.
 In the fourth quadrant the modified
Mohr theory represents the data best.
 In the third quadrant the points A, B, C,
and D are too few to make any
suggestion concerning a fracture
locus.
 Some materials have compressive strengths different from tensile
strengths
 Mohr theory is based on three simple tests: tension, compression, and
shear
 Plotting Mohr’s circle for each, bounding curve defines failure envelope

Fig. 5−12
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Curved failure curve is difficult to determine analytically

 Coulomb-Mohr theory simplifies to linear failure envelope using only
tension and compression tests (dashed circles)

Fig. 5−13
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
  From the geometry, derive
the failure criteria

Fig. 5−13

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Incorporating factor of safety

 For ductile material, use tensile and compressive yield strengths

 For brittle material, use tensile and compressive ultimate strengths

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 To plot on principal stress axes, consider three cases
 Case 1: A ≥ B ≥  For this case, 1 = A and 3 = 0
 Eq. (5−22) reduces to

 Case 2: A ≥  ≥ B For this case, 1 = A and 3 = B

 Eq. (5-22) reduces to

 Case 3: 0 ≥ A ≥ B For this case, 1 =  and 3 = B

 Eq. (5−22) reduces to

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Plot three cases on principal stress axes

 Similar to MSS theory, except with different strengths for compression and tension

Fig. 5−14
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Intersect the pure shear load line with the failure line to determine
the shear strength
 Since failure line is a function of tensile and compressive strengths,
shear strength is also a function of these terms.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Fig. 5−16

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Fig. 5−17
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Fig. 5−17

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Experimental data indicates some differences in failure for brittle

materials.
 Failure criteria is generally ultimate fracture rather than yielding
 Compressive strengths are usually larger than tensile strengths

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Fig. 5−19
 First determine ductile vs. brittle
 For ductile
 MSS is conservative, often used for design where higher reliability is
desired
 DE is typical, often used for analysis where agreement with experimental
data is desired
 If tensile and compressive strengths differ, use Ductile Coulomb-Mohr

 For brittle
 Mohr theory is best, but difficult to use
 Brittle Coulomb-Mohr is very conservative in 4th quadrant
 Modified Mohr is still slightly conservative in 4th quadrant, but closer to
typical

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Fig. 5−21
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
APPLICABLE EXAMPLES
 A circular rod is subjected to combined loading consisting of a

tensile load P= 10 kN and a torque T

= 5 kN-m. Rod is 50 mm in
diameter.
 1) Draw stress element (cube) at the most highly
stressed location on the rod, and
 2) draw corresponding Mohr’s circle(s).
Problem: Determine the safety factors for the bracket rod based on the both the
distortion-energy theory and the maximum shear theory and compare

Given: Yield strength Sy=324 MPa Rod length L=150 mm

Arm length a=200 mm Rod diameter d=38 mm
Load F=4450 N