Lecture 7

2nd December 2018

 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
 Explain failure theorems for failure prediction in brittle materials
 Explain failure theorems for failure prediction in ductile
materials
 Compare the failure theorems used for failure prediction in
ductile materials
 Solve / practice the problems associated with the failure
theorems

1-2
 Failure Theories
• Although research is underway not only to explain but also
quantify the strength of materials in terms of its atomic
structure and properties, it is still not practical to design
machines and structures based on such atomistic models.
• Hence, we resort to phenomenological failure theories, which
are based on observations and testing over a period of time.
• The purpose of failure theories is to extend the strength
values obtained from uniaxial tests to multi-axial states of
stress that exists in practical structures.
• It is not practical to test a material under all possible
combinations of stress states.
• In the following sections, we describe some well-established
phenomenological failure theories for both ductile and brittle
materials.
1-3
 Failure Criteria
 Stress-Based Criteria
• The purpose of failure criteria is to predict or estimate the
failure/yield of machine parts and structural members.
• A considerable number of theories have been proposed.
However, only the most common and well-tested theories
applicable to isotropic materials are discussed here. These
theories, dependent on the nature of the material (i.e. brittle
or ductile), are listed in the following table:

1-4
 Failure Criteria
• All four criteria are presented in terms of principal stresses.
Therefore, all stresses should be transformed to the principal
stresses before applying these failure criteria.
• Note: 1. Whether a material is brittle or ductile could be a
subjective guess, and often depends on temperature, strain
levels, and other environmental conditions. However, a 5%
elongation criterion at break is a reasonable dividing line. Ductile
Materials have % elongation  5%. Brittle Materials have %
elongation < 5%. For machine members subjected to repeated
or shock or impact loads, materials with % elongation > 12% are
recommended.
• Another distinction is a brittle material's compression strength is
usually significantly larger than its tensile strength.

1-5
 Failure Criteria
• Note: 2. All popular failure criteria rely on only a handful of basic
tests (such as uniaxial tensile and/or compression strength),
even though most machine parts and structural members are
typically subjected to multi-axial loading. This disparity is usually
driven by cost, since complete multi-axial failure testing requires
extensive, complicated, and expensive tests.

1-6
 Failure Criteria
 Non Stress-Based Criteria
• The success of all machine parts and structural members are
not necessarily determined by their strength. Whether a part
succeeds or fails may depend on other factors, such as
stiffness, vibrational characteristics, fatigue resistance, and/or
creep resistance.
• For example, the automobile industry has endeavored many
years to increase the rigidity of passenger cages and install
additional safety equipment. The bicycle industry continues to
decrease the weight and increase the stiffness of bicycles to
enhance their performance.

1-7
 Failure Criteria
 Non Stress-Based Criteria
• In civil engineering, a patio deck only needs to be strong
enough to carry the weight of several people. However, a
design based on the "strong enough" precept will often result
a bouncy deck that most people will find objectionable.
Rather, the stiffness of the deck determines the success of the
design. Many factors, in addition to stress, may contribute to
the design requirements of a part. Together, these
requirements are intended to increase the sense of security,
safety, and quality of service of the part.

1-8
 FAILURE THEORIES
• Definition: Failure of a member subjected to load can be
regarded as any behavior of the member which renders it
unsuitable for its intended function.
• Engineers concerned with the design and development of
structural or machine parts are generally confronted with
problems involving biaxial (occasionally triaxial) stresses
covering an infinite range or ratios of principal stresses.
• However, the available strength data usually pertain to
uniaxial stress, and often only to uniaxial tension.
• As a result, the following question arises: If a material can
withstand a known stress in uniaxial tension, how highly can
it be safety stressed in a specific case involving biaxial (or
triaxial) loading?

1-9
 FAILURE THEORIES
• The answer must be given by a failure theory. The philosophy
that has been used in formulating and applying failure theories
consists of two parts:
1. Postulated theory to explain failure of a standard specimen.
Consider the case involving a tensile specimen, with failure being
regarded as initial yielding. We might theorize that tensile
yielding occurred as a result of exceeding the capacity of the
materials in one or more respects, such as:
a) capacity to withstand normal stress,
b) capacity to withstand shear stress,
c) capacity to withstand normal strain,
d) capacity to withstand shear strain,
e) capacity to absorb strain energy (energy associated with both a
change in volume and shape), and
f) capacity to absorb distortion energy (energy associated
with solely a change in shape). 1 - 10
 FAILURE THEORIES
2. The results of the standard test are used to establish the
magnitude of the capacity chosen sufficient to cause initial
yielding. Thus, if the standard tensile test indicates a yield
strength of 100 ksi, we might assume that yielding will
always occur with this material under any combination of
static loads which results in one of the following:
a) a maximum normal stress greater than that of the test
specimen (100 ksi),
b) a maximum shear stress greater than that of the test
specimen (50 ksi),
c–f) are defined analogously to a and b.

1 - 11
 FAILURE THEORIES
• Hence, in the simple classical theories of failure, it is
assumed that the same amount of whatever caused the
selected tensile specimen to fail will also cause any part
made of the materials to fail regardless of the state of stress
involved.
• When used with judgment, such simple theories are quite
usable in modern engineering practice.

1 - 12
 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 The theory of failure due to the maximum normal stress is
generally attributed to W. J. M. Rankine.
 It is applicable to prediction of failure in brittle materials.
 According to this theory, failure of a brittle material
subjected to multi-axial loading will occur whenever the
value of the maximum principal stress becomes equal to
(or exceeds) the maximum normal stress value that caused
failure in a simple tension test made of the same material.
 Following this theory, the strength of the material depends
upon only one of the principal stresses (the largest tension
or the largest compression) and is entirely independent of
the other two.
 Experiments in uniaxial tension and torsion have
corroborated this theory. 1 - 13
 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory

Figure 2. Mohr’s Circles for Several Stress States Representing

Incipient Yielding According to Maximum Normal Stress
Theory 1 - 14
 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory
Each of the circles is a principal circle for the state of stress
which it represents. This theory implies that failure (in this
case yielding) occurs when and only when the principal
Mohr’s circle extends outside the dashed vertical lines given
by = .

1 - 15
 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 A number of simple tension tests are performed to determine the
ultimate strength of the brittle material.
 Here, Mohr’s circle for this stress state is plotted.

Simple tension test Mohr’s circle 1 - 16

 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 When will a pressure vessel made of a brittle material fail
according to the Maximum Normal Stress theory?
 If we plot Mohr's circle for the stress state in the pressure vessel
we see that the vessel fails when the hoop stress (which is two
times the longitudinal stress for a pressurized cylinder) reaches
the ultimate stress for the material. The presence of the
longitudinal stress does not come into play.
Principal stresses and Moher’s circle
for a pressure vessel

Failure of a pressure vessel

1 - 17
 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 When will a torsion bar fail according to the Maximum Normal
Stress theory? Torsion loading in a bar with circular cross-
section induces pure shear in the bar.
 If we plot Mohr’s circle for pure shear, we see that failure will
occur when the magnitude of the major principal stress reaches
that which caused fracture in a simple tension test.

Moher’s circle for a Torsion bar

Failure of a Torsion bar

1 - 18
 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 To visualize the Maximum Normal Stress failure criterion, a
figure known as the fracture envelope (for uneven materials) is
plotted. The edges of the envelope reflects the points, that is,
 Any point (state of stress) that lies on or outside of the envelope,
will be unsafe. A point falling inside the envelope will be safe.
In the 3D case, we have to deal with a cube.

2D Principal Stresses 2D Fracture Envelope 1 - 19

 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 To visualize the Maximum Normal Stress failure criterion, a
figure known as the fracture envelope (for even material) is
plotted. The edges of the envelope reflects the points, that is,

 Any point (state of stress) that lies on or outside of the envelope,

will be unsafe. A point falling inside the envelope will be safe.

2D Principal Stresses 2D Fracture Envelope 1 - 20

 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 In the case of 3-D stress, the fracture envelope becomes a cube.
 Again, any stress state which falls outside of the fracture
envelope represents a point where the material will be unsafe.
 Stress state which falls inside the fracture envelope represents a
point where the material will be safe.

3D Principal Stresses 3D Fracture Envelope

1 - 21
 Failure Theories
Maximum Normal Stress Theory Applicability
• Reasonably accurate for materials which produce brittle fracture
both in the test specimen and in actual service such as: Cast iron,
concrete, hardened tool steel, glass.
• It cannot predict failure under hydrostatic compression (the state
of stress in which all three principle stresses are equal).
Structural materials, including those listed above, can withstand
hydrostatic stresses many times
• It cannot accurately predict strengths where a ductile failure
occurs.

1 - 22
 Failure Theories
Maximum Shear Stress Theory
 Recall that yielding of a material occurs by slippage between
planes oriented at 45° to principal stresses. This indicates that
yielding of a material depends on the maximum shear stress in
the material rather than the maximum normal stress.
 Exactly such a theory was forwarded by Coulomb and later by
H. Tresca in 1868.
 According to this theory, yielding will occur whenever the
maximum shear stress in a ductile material subjected to multi-
axial loading becomes equa to (or exceeds) the value of the
maximum shear stress that caused yielding of a simple tension
test made of the same material.
 Plotting Mohr's circle at yield, it could be seen that for a simple
tension test, the maximum shear stress is one half of the yield
stress.
1 - 23
 Failure Theories
Maximum Shear Stress Theory

 In the case of plane stress, the maximum shear stress depends

on both σ1 and σ2.

1 - 24
 Failure Theories
Maximum Shear Stress Theory

 The maximum shear stress is calculated as the diameter of the

circle divided by two
 The condition for yield is that the difference between the
smallest and the largest principal stresses equals or exceeds the
yield stress.

1 - 25
 Failure Theories
Maximum Shear Stress Theory

 Given this case of plane strain, will the material yield according
to the Tresca theory?

 If we simply plug in the values for σ1 and σ2, it would appear

that the material is safe.
1 - 26
 Failure Theories
Maximum Shear Stress Theory

 We know that the maximum shear stress will occur out of plane
if the sign of the two principal stresses is the same. In this case,
the maximum shear stress is actually about three times as great
as we originally estimated.

1 - 27
 Failure Theories
Maximum Shear Stress Theory

 Similar to what we saw for the Maximum Normal Stress theory,

we can plot a yield envelope representing the maximum shear
stress failure criterion. Note how this envelope deviates from the
previous one in the second and fourth quadrants.

1 - 28
 Failure Theories
Maximum Shear Stress Theory

 The yield envelope in three dimensions appears as a hexagon

projected down the hydrostatic axis, σ1 = σ2 = σ3. This means
that the theory predicts no change in material response with the
addition of hydrostatic stresses.

1 - 29
 Strain Energy
 When a force is applied to a solid, it deforms.
 Then, we can say that work is done on the solid, which is
proportional to the force and deformation.
 The work done by applied force is stored in the solid as
potential energy, which is called the strain energy.
 The strain energy in the solid may not be distributed
uniformly throughout the solid.
 Strain energy per unit volume is called strain energy
density.

1 - 30
 Decomposition of Strain Energy
STRAIN ENERGY IS SEGREGATED INTO THREE CATEGORIES:

1) Total strain energy per unit volume of the stressed

element, arising from the three principal stresses
2) Strain energy per unit volume arising from the
hydrostatic stress that causes change of volume only,
and which is uniform in all three directions
3) Strain energy per unit volume arising from stresses
causing distortion of the element, and this can be
expressed as the difference between category (1) and
(2).

1 - 31
 Decomposition of Strain Energy

• General Case

• Tri-axial stress situation

1 - 32
STRAINS IN UNI-AXIAL STRESS
•Bi-axial stress is the stress situation that consists of one
principal stress,
•The strains are given by in terms of the principal stress as

1 1 1
1  ,  2   ,  3  
E E E
1 - 33
 STRAINS IN BI-AXIAL STRESS
• Bi-axial stress is the stress situation that consists of two
principal stresses,
• The strains are given by in terms of the two principal
stresses as

 1   1   2 ,
1
E
 2   2   1 ,
1
E
 3     1   2 
1
E

1 - 34
 STRAINS IN TRI-AXIAL STRESS
• Tri-Axial Stress is the case of three principal stresses
• The most general case
• Three strains in the directions of the principal stresses
• Strains are given in terms of the three principal stresses as

1 
1
 1    2   3  (1)
E
 2   2    1   3 
1
(2)
E
 3   3    1   2 
1
(3)
E

1 - 35
 ENERGY PER UNIT VOLUME
Tri-Axial Stress
Total strain energy
• It is the strain energy caused by the three principal
stresses. It is given by the expression
1 1 1
U   11   2 2   3 3
2 2 2
• Substituting for elastic strains
1 
1
 1    2   3  (1)
E
 2   2    1   3 
1
(2)
E
 3   3    1   2 
1
(3)
E
Yields the Total strain energy in terms of stresses

U
1
2E
 
 12   2 2   3 2  2  1 2   2 3   1 3  1 - 36
 STRAIN ENERGY DUE TO
HYDROSTATIC STRESS
• Hydrostatic stress is the stress that causes change of
volume only
• Hydrostatic stress may be considered as the average of the
three principal stresses and derived and expressed as
1   2   3
 av 
3
• Using the equation for total strain energy yields an
expression for hydrostatic strain energy as

U
1
2E
 
 12   2 2   3 2  2  1 2   2 3   1 3 

Uv 
1
2E
 
3 av  2 3 av
2 2

3 av 31  2  2
2
Uv  1  2    av
2E 2E 1 - 37
STRAIN ENERGY DUE
HYDROSTATIC STRESS

1 - 38
 DISTORSION STRAIN ENERGY
• Distortion energy is the difference between total strain
energy and the hydrostatic strain energy
Ud  U Uv
But Total Strain Energy is

U
1
2E
 
 1 2   2 2   3 2  2  1 2   2 3   1 3 
and Hydrostatic strain energy

Uv 
1  2 2
6E

 1   2 2   3 2  2 1 2   2 3   1 3  

1 - 39
DISTORSION STRAIN ENERGY IN
SIMPLE TENSION TEST
When yielding occurs in simple tension test, the principal
stresses are given by

Substitute into the expression for distortion energy, we get

1 - 40
 DISTORSION ENERGY THEORY
• For the general three dimensional stress situation:
“When Yielding occurs in any material, the distortion
strain energy per unit volume at the point of failure,
Equals or exceeds the distortion strain energy per unit
volume when yielding occurs in the tension test
specimen”.
• Equating the expressions for the two situations, we get

 1   2 2   2   3 2   1   3 2  2S y 2
or
  1   2 2   2   3 2   1   3 2 
   Sy
 2 

1 - 41
 DISTORSION ENERGY THEORY
• Left hand side of the equation referred to as the Effective,
or Von-Mises stress

• Von-Mises stress is an important stress that is compared

with the design or allowable stress

1 - 42
 DISTORSION ENERGY THEORY
• Consider a situation in which only a shear stress exists,
such that σx = σy = 0 , and τxy = τ. For this stress state, the
principal stresses are σ1 = –σ2 = τ and σ3 = 0. On the σ1–
σ2 plane, this pure shear state is represented as a straight
line through the origin at –45º as shown in Figure. The line
intersects the von Mises failure envelope at two points, A
and B. The magnitude of σ1 and σ2 at these points can be
found from previous equations as

1 - 43
 DISTORSION ENERGY THEORY
• Thus, in pure shear stress state, the material yields when
the shear stress reaches 0.577 of . This value will be
compared to the maximum shear stress theory.

Figure: Failure envelope of the distortion energy theory

1 - 44
 COMPARISON B/W DISTORSION
ENERGY THEORY AND TRESCA
THEORY
• The hexagon in the following Figure represents the two–
dimensional failure envelope according to maximum shear
stress theory.
• The ellipse corresponding to von Mises’s theory is also
shown in the same figure.
• The hexagon is inscribed within the ellipse and contacts it
at six vertices. Combinations of principal stresses σ1 and
σ2 that lie within this hexagon are considered safe based
on the maximum shear stress theory, and failure is
considered to occur when the combined stress state
reaches the hexagonal boundary.
• This is obviously more conservative failure theory than
distortion energy theory as it is contained within the latter.
1 - 45
 COMPARISON B/W DISTORSION
ENERGY THEORY AND TRESCA
THEORY
• In the pure shear stress state, the shear stress at the points
C and D correspond to 0.5σY, which is smaller than 0.577σY
according to the distortion energy theory.

1 - 46
Figure: Failure envelope of the maximum shear stress theory
 PROBLEM 1
A circular shaft of tensile strength 𝑆𝑌=350 MPa is subjected
to a combined state of loading defined by bending moment
M=8 kN.m and torque T=24kN.m.Calculate the required
shaft diameter d in order to achieve a factor of safety N=2.
Use (a) the maximum shearing stress theory (MSST-Tresca)
(b) the maximum distortion energy theory(MDET –Von
Mises)

1 - 47
PROBLEMS SOLUTION

1 - 48
PROBLEMS SOLUTION

1 - 49
 PROBLEM 2
For the state of plane stress shown, determine whether or
not failure is a possibility to occur in the material subjected
the state of plane stress and having Sy = 200 MPa.

7 - 50
 PROBLEM 3
A brittle material is subjected to the state of plane stress
shown, determine whether or not failure is a possibility to
occur in the material having Sut = 300 MPa.

7 - 51
 PROBLEM 4
Due to the applied loading, the element of a ductile material
at point A on the solid shaft shown in the figure is subjected
to the state of plane stress as shown. determine whether or
not failure is a possibility to occur in the material having
Sy = 50 kpi.

7 - 52
 THANKS
Questions (if any)