Failure Theories

When dealing with the design of structures or components the physical properties of
the constituent materials are usually found from the results of laboratory experiments
which have only subjected the materials to the simplest stress conditions. The most usual
test is the simple tensile test in which the value of stress at yield or at fracture (whichever
occurs first) is easily determined. The strengths of materials under complex stress systems
are not generally known except in a few particular cases.
In practice it is these complicated systems of stress which are more often encountered,
and therefore it is necessary to have some basis for determining allowable working stresses
so that failure will not occur.
Thus, the function of the theories of elastic failure is to predict from the behaviour
of materials in a simple tensile test when elastic failure will occur under any condition of
applied stress.
In order to determine suitable allowable stresses for the complicated stress conditions
which occur in practical design, various failure theories or criteria have been developed.
Such theories are also called strength theories or yield criteria.
The purpose of these theories is to predict failure conditions under combined stresses,
assuming that the behaviour in a simple tension or compression is known. by failure of
the material is meant either yielding or actual rupture, whichever occurs first.

Maximum principal stress theory

The theory assumes that when the maximum principal stress in the complex stress system
reaches the elastic limit stress in simple tension, failure occurs. The criterion of failure is
thus:
σ1 = σY (tension)
σ3 = σY (compression)
Whilst the theory can be shown to hold fairly well for brittle materials, there is considerable
experimental evidence that the theory should not be applied for ductile materials. For
example, even in the case of the pure tension test itself, failure for ductile materials takes
place not because of the direct stresses applied but in shear on planes at 45◦ to the
specimen axis.
Also, truly homogeneous materials can withstand very high hydrostatic pressures with-
out failing, thus indicating that maximum direct that maximum direct stresses alone do
not constitute a valid failure criteria for all loading conditions.

Maximum Shear Stress (Tresca) Criterion

The failure theories are generally expressed in terms of principal stresses, since these com-
pletely determine a general state of stress, Figure 1 . Materials which exhibit ”yielding”
followed by some plastic deformation prior to fracture as measured under simple tensile
or compressive stress are termed ductile.
The French engineer Tresca in 1868 made the assumption that yielding is dependent
on the maximum shear stress in the material reaching critical value. This is taken as the
maximum shear stress at yielding in a uniaxial tensile test. The maximum shear stress
in the complex stress system will depend on the relative values and signs of the three
principal stresses.
For a general 3D stress system, or in 2D case with one of the stresses tensile, one
compressive and the third zero, the maximum shear stress is

(σ1 − σ3 )
τmax = (1)
2

1
 σ1

σ2 σ3

σ3 σ2

σ1 σ1 > σ2 > σ3

Figure 1: Principal stresses.

Under uniaxial tension there is only one principal stress so that the maximum shear stress
is
σ1
τmax = (2)
2
and at yield this becomes τY = σY /2. Therefore the criterion states that

(σ1 − σ3 ) σY
= (3)
2 2
or
σ1 − σ3 = σY (4)
For the case when two of the principal stresses are of the same type, tension or compression,
and the third is zero:
(σ1 − 0) σ1
τmax = = (5)
2 2
and yielding occurs when
σ1 σY
= or σ1 = σY (6)
2 2

Shear Strain Energy Criterion

The Ukrainian scientist Huber in 1904 proposed that the total elastic strain energy stored
in an element of material could considered as consisting of energy stored due to change
in volume and energy stored due to change in shape, i.e. distorsion or shear. It was
proposed that the latter contribution of stored strain energy could provide a viable criterion
for complex yield conditions. The same criterion was also suggested independently by
Maxwell, von Mises and Hencky, but now generally referred to the von Mises criterion.
Thus
σ1 = σ̄ + σ1′
σ2 = σ̄ + σ2′ (7)
σ3 = σ̄ + σ3′
where σ̄ is the average stress which produces a change in volume, but no distorsion:

σ̄ = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )/3 (8)

Consider the effect of the σ ′ components of stress:

σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = 3σ̄ + σ1′ + σ2′ + σ3′ (9)

Substituting equation (8) here we obtain

σ1′ + σ2′ + σ3′ = 0 (10)

2
 ′
σ1 σ̄ σ1

′
σ3 σ̄ ′
σ2 σ3
σ2 σ̄

′ ′
σ3 σ2 σ̄ σ̄ σ3 σ2

σ1 = σ̄
+ ′
σ1

Figure 2: Von Mises criterion.

From the stress-strain relationships we know

σ1′ ν
ε′1 = − (σ2′ + σ3′ )
E E
σ′ ν
ε′2 = 2 − (σ3′ + σ1′ ) (11)
E E
σ′ ν
ε′3 = 3 − (σ1′ + σ2′ )
E E
Hence
(1 − 2ν) ′
ε′1 + ε′2 + ε′3 =
(σ1 + σ2′ + σ3′ ) (12)
E
and since the sum of the stresses is zero we have
ε′1 + ε′2 + ε′3 = 0 (13)
Thus the stress components cause no change in volume but only change in shape.

Strain energy quantities UT = total strain energy; UV = volumetric strain energy

and US = shear distorsion strain energy:
UT = UV + US (14)
And
1 1 1
σ1 ε1 + σ2 ε2 + σ3 ε3
UT = (15)
2 2 2
Using stress strain relationships (11) and rearranging terms we get the total energy per
unit volume
1 ν
UT = (σ 2 + σ22 + σ32 ) − (σ1 σ2 + σ2 σ3 + σ3 σ1 ) (16)
2E 1 E
The volumetric strain energy can now be determined from the hydrostatic component of
stress σ̄
1
UV = σ̄ε
2
1 3σ̄
= σ̄ (1 − 2ν) (17)
2 E   
1 σ1 + σ2 + σ3 3(1 − 2ν) σ1 + σ2 + σ3
=
2 3 E 3
1 − 2ν
= (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )2
6E
But US = UT − UV , thus
1 2
US = [σ + σ22 + σ32 − 2ν(σ1 σ2 + σ2 σ3 + σ3 σ1 )]
2E 1
1 − 2ν
− (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )2 (18)
6E

3
After simplification
1+ν
US = [(σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 ] (19)
6E
per unit volume.
Or using the relationship between E, G and ν (G = E/2(1 − ν))
1
US = [(σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 ] (20)
12G
The shear strain energy theory proposes that yielding commences when the quantity US
reaches the equivalent value at yielding in simple tension (σ2 and σ3 = 0 and σ1 = σY ),
thus.

σY2
US = (21)
6G
Next
σY2 1
US = = [(σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 ] (22)
6G 12G
or
(σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 = 2σY2 (23)
In the 2D system, σ3 = 0 and for yielding to occur:

σ12 + σ22 − σ1 σ2 = σY2 (24)

Many experiments have been conducted under complex stress conditions to study the
behaviour of metals and it has been shown that hydrostatic pressure, and by inference
hydrostatic tension, does not cause yielding. Any complex system can be regarded as a
combination of hydrostatic stress and a function of the difference of principal stresses, and
therefore a yield criterion such as that of Tresca or von Mises which based on principal
stress difference seems the most logical.

Yield Envelope and Locus

The principal stresses may then be calculated and plotted to represent yielding, as shown
in Figure 3. It is seen that there is a close correlation with the von Mises shear strain
energy criterion and that the Tresca maximum shear stress criterion. As can be seen, the
Tresca criterion is satisfactory but more conservative.

Examples
Example 1. A mild steel shaft of 50mm diameter is subjected to a bending moment of
1.9kNm. If the yield point of the steel in simple tension is 200MN/m2 , find the maximum
torque that can also be applied according to
(a) the maximum shear stress;
(b) the shear strain energy theory of yielding

Solution: The maximum bending stress occurs at the surface of the shaft and is given
by
32M 32 1900
σx = 3
= × = 155M N/m2
πd π 125 × 10−6
The maximum shear stress at the surface is
16T 16 T
τxy = = × = 40.7 × 103 T
πd3 π 125 × 10−6

4
 σ2

σY

Shear strain energy

45◦

−σY σY σ1

0.577σY
Maximum shear stress

Shear diagonal

−σY

Figure 3: Yield envelope.

(a)Maximum shear stress theory

σ1 − σ2 200 × 106
τ= =
2 2
Taking into account that:
σx + σy 1q 2 ]σ = x
σ + σy 1q
σ1 = + [(σx − σy )2 + 4τxy 2 − [(σx − σy )2 + 4τxy
2 ]
2 2 2 2
we get q
(σx2 + 4τxy
2 )
200 × 106
=
2 2
155 + [4 × (0.0407T ) ] = 2002
2 2

0.00166T 2 = 4000 =⇒ T = 1.55kN m

(b)Shear strain energy theory
σ12 + σ22 − σ1 σ2 = (200 × 106 )2
Putting
A = σx2 + 3τx2y
1 √ 1 √ 1 √ √
(σx + A)2 + (σx − A)2 − (σx − A)(σx + A) = (200 × 106 )2
4 4 4
1 2 √ √
[σx + 2σx A + A + σx2 − 2σx A + A − σx2 + A] = (200 × 106 )2
4
After simplifying
σx2 + 3τxy
2
= (200 × 106 )2
1552 + [3 × (0.00166T 2)] = 2002 ; 0.00166T 2 = 5330
Therefore
T = 1.79kN m

5
Example 2. A thin-walled steel cylinder of 2m diameter is subjected to an internal
pressure of 2.5MN/m2 . Using a safety factor of 2 and a yield stress in simple tension of
400MN/m2 , calculate wall thickness on the basis of Tresca and von Mises yield criteria.
It may be assumed that the radial stress in the wall is negligible.

Solution: The principal stresses in the cylinder can be calculated as:

pr pr
σ1 = and σ2 =
t 2t
(a) Tresca criterion. Since both axial and circumferential stresses are tension the maximum
difference between principal stresses gives:
σ1 − 0 σY
τmax = = at yielding
2 2
Hence
2.5 × 1000 400
σ1 = σY therefore = =⇒ t = 12.5mm
t 2
(b) Von Mises criterion.
σ12 + σ22 − σ1 σ2 = σY2
p2 r 2 p2 r 2 p2 r 2
+ − = σY2
t2 4t2 2t2
3 p2 r 2
= σY2
4 t2
 1/2  1/2
3 pr 3 2.5 × 1000
t= · = ·
4 σY 4 200
=⇒ t = 10.8mm
The slightly larger plate thickness given by the Tresca criterion illustrates its more con-
servative characteristic compared with the von Mises criterion.

Fracture Criteria: Brittle materials

Brittleness in a material may be defined as an inability to deform plastically. Materials
such as glass, some cast irons, concrete and some plastics, when subjected to tensile stress
will generally fracture at or just beyond the elastic limit.

Maximum principal stress (Rankine) criterion This hypothesis states that “fail-
ure” (fracture of a brittle material or yielding of a ductile material) will occur in a complex
stress state when when the maximum principal stress reaches the stress at “failure” in sim-
ple tension. The 2D locus for this theory is illustrated in Figure 4

Mohr fracture criterion Some materials, such as cast iron, have much greater strength
in compression than in tension. Mohr proposed that, in the first and third quadrants of a
“failure” locus, a maximum principal stress theory was appropriate based on the ultimate
strength of the material in tension or compression respectively. In the second and fourth
quadrants where the two principal stresses are of opposite signs the maximum shear stress
should apply (Figure 5).

6
 σ2
σf

σf σ1
0

Figure 4: Rankine criterion.

σ2 tension
σuc σut

σut
σ1 compression σ1 tension
0

σuc

σ2 compression

Figure 5: Mohr fracture criterion.

7
Appendix

Theories of elastic failure

1. Maximum principal σ1 = σY
stress (Rankine)
2. Maximum shear stress σ1 − σ3 = σY
(Guest–Tresca)
3. Maximum principal σ1 − νσ2 − νσ3 = σY
strain (Saint–Venant)
4. Total strain energy per σ12 + σ22 + σ32 − 2ν(σ1 σ2 + σ2 σ3 + σ3 σ1 ) = σY2
unit volume (Haigh)
5. Shear strain energy per (σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 = 2σY2
unit volume. Distorsion
energy theory (Maxvell–Huber–
von Mises)

Mohr’s modified shear stress theory for brittle materials

σ1 σ2
+ =1
σut σuc