Lecture Slides

Chapter 5

Failures Resulting from

Static Loading

© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner. This document may not be
copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter Outline

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Failure Examples

Fig. 5–1
 Failure of truck driveshaft spline due to corrosion fatigue

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Failure Examples

Fig. 5–2

 Impact failure of a lawn-mower blade driver hub.

 The blade impacted a surveying pipe marker.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Failure Examples

Fig. 5–3

 Failure of an overhead-pulley retaining bolt on a weightlifting

machine.
 A manufacturing error caused a gap that forced the bolt to take
the entire moment load.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Failure Examples

Fig. 5–4
 Chain test fixture that failed in one cycle.
 To alleviate complaints of excessive wear, the manufacturer decided to
case-harden the material
 (a) Two halves showing brittle fracture initiated by stress concentration
 (b) Enlarged view showing cracks induced by stress concentration at
the support-pin holes
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Failure Examples

Fig. 5–5

 Valve-spring failure caused by spring surge in an oversped

engine.
 The fractures exhibit the classic 45 degree shear failure

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Static Strength
 Usually necessary to design using published strength values
 Experimental test data is better, but generally only warranted
for large quantities or when failure is very costly (in time,
expense, or life)
 Methods are needed to safely and efficiently use published
strength values for a variety of situations

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Concentration
 Localized increase of stress near discontinuities
 Kt is Theoretical (Geometric) Stress Concentration Factor

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Theoretical Stress Concentration Factor
 Graphs available for
standard configurations
 See Appendix A–15 and
A–16 for common
examples
 Many more in Peterson’s
Stress-Concentration Fig. A–15–1
Factors
 Note the trend for higher
Kt at sharper discontinuity
radius, and at greater
disruption

Fig. A–15–9 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Concentration for Static and Ductile Conditions
 With static loads and ductile materials
◦ Highest stressed fibers yield (cold work)
◦ Load is shared with next fibers
◦ Cold working is localized
◦ Overall part does not see damage unless ultimate strength is
exceeded
◦ Stress concentration effect is commonly ignored for static
loads on ductile materials
 Stress concentration must be included for dynamic loading (See
Ch. 6)
 Stress concentration must be included for brittle materials,
since localized yielding may reach brittle failure rather than
cold-working and sharing the load.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Need for Static Failure Theories
 Uniaxial stress element (e.g. tension test)
Strength S
n 
Stress 
 Multi-axialstress element
◦ One strength, multiple stresses
◦ How to compare stress state to single strength?

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Need for Static Failure Theories
 Failure theories propose appropriate means of comparing multi-
axial stress states to single strength
 Usually based on some hypothesis of what aspect of the stress
state is critical
 Some failure theories have gained recognition of usefulness for
various situations

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Normal (Principal) Stress Theory
 Theory: Yielding begins when the maximum principal stress in
a stress element exceeds the yield strength.
 For any stress element, use Mohr’s circle to find the principal
stresses.
 Compare the largest principal stress to the yield strength.
 Often the first theory to be proposed by engineering students.
 Is it a good theory?

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Normal (Principal) Stress Theory
 Experimental data
shows the theory is
unsafe in the 4th
quadrant.
 This theory is not safe
to use for ductile
materials.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)
 Theory: Yielding begins when the maximum shear stress in a
stress element exceeds the maximum shear stress in a tension
test specimen of the same material when that specimen begins to
yield.
 For a tension test specimen, the maximum shear stress is s1 /2.

 At yielding, when s1 = Sy, the maximum shear stress is Sy /2 .

 Could restate the theory as follows:
◦ Theory: Yielding begins when the maximum shear stress in a
stress element exceeds Sy/2.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)
 For any stress element, use Mohr’s circle to find the maximum
shear stress. Compare the maximum shear stress to Sy/2.
 Ordering the principal stresses such that s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3,

 Incorporating a factor of safety n

 Or solving for factor of Ssafety

y /2
n
 max

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)

 To compare to experimental data, express tmax in terms of

principal stresses and plot.
 To simplify, consider a plane stress state
 Let sA and sB represent the two non-zero principal stresses, then
order them with the zero principal stress such that s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3
 Assuming sA ≥ sB there are three cases to consider
◦ Case 1: sA ≥ sB ≥ 0
◦ Case 2: sA ≥ 0 ≥ sB
◦ Case 3: 0 ≥ sA ≥ sB

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)

 Case 1: sA ≥ sB ≥ 0
◦ For this case, s1 = sA and s3 = 0
◦ Eq. (5–1) reduces to sA ≥ Sy
 Case 2: sA ≥ 0 ≥ sB
◦ For this case, s1 = sA and s3 = sB
◦ Eq. (5–1) reduces to sA − sB ≥ Sy
 Case 3: 0 ≥ sA ≥ sB
◦ For this case, s1 = 0 and s3 = sB
◦ Eq. (5–1) reduces to sB ≤ −Sy

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)
 Plot three cases on
principal stress axes
 Case 1: sA ≥ sB ≥ 0

◦ sA ≥ Sy
 Case 2: sA ≥ 0 ≥ sB
◦ sA − sB ≥ Sy
 Case 3: 0 ≥ sA ≥ sB
◦ sB ≤ −Sy
 Other lines are
symmetric cases
 Inside envelope is
predicted safe zone
Fig. 5–7
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)
 Comparison to
experimental data
 Conservative in all
quadrants
 Commonly used for
design situations

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Distortion Energy (DE) Failure Theory
 Also known as:
◦ Octahedral Shear Stress
◦ Shear Energy
◦ Von Mises
◦ Von Mises – Hencky

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Distortion Energy (DE) Failure Theory
 Originated from observation that ductile materials stressed
hydrostatically (equal principal stresses) exhibited yield
strengths greatly in excess of expected values.
 Theorizes that if strain energy is divided into hydrostatic
volume changing energy and angular distortion energy, the
yielding is primarily affected by the distortion energy.

Fig. 5–8
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Distortion Energy (DE) Failure Theory
 Theory: Yielding occurs when the distortion strain energy per
unit volume reaches the distortion strain energy per unit volume
for yield in simple tension or compression of the same material.

Fig. 5–8

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Deriving the Distortion Energy
 Hydrostatic stress is average of principal stresses

 Strainenergy per unit volume,

 Substituting Eq. (3–19) for principal strains into strain energy
equation,

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Deriving the Distortion Energy

 Strain energy for producing only volume change is obtained by

substituting sav for s1, s2, and s3

 Substituting sav from Eq. (a),

 Obtain distortion energy by subtracting volume changing

energy, Eq. (5–7), from total strain energy, Eq. (b)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Deriving the Distortion Energy

 Tension test specimen at yield has s1 = Sy and s2 = s3 =0

 Applying to Eq. (5–8), distortion energy for tension test
specimen is

 DE theory predicts failure when distortion energy, Eq. (5–8),

exceeds distortion energy of tension test specimen, Eq. (5–9)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Von Mises Stress

 Left hand side is defined as von Mises stress

 For plane stress, simplifies to

 In terms of xyz components, in three dimensions

 In terms of xyz components, for plane stress

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Distortion Energy Theory With Von Mises Stress
 Von Mises Stress can be thought of as a single, equivalent, or
effective stress for the entire general state of stress in a stress
element.
 Distortion Energy failure theory simply compares von Mises
stress to yield strength.

 Introducing a design factor,

 Expressing as factor of safety,

Sy
n


Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Octahedral Stresses
 Same results obtained by evaluating octahedral stresses.
 Octahedral stresses are identical on 8 surfaces symmetric to the
principal stress directions.
 Octahedral stresses allow representation of any stress situation
with a set of normal and shear stresses.

Principal stress element with single

All 8 octahedral planes showing
octahedral plane showing
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Octahedral Shear Stress
 Octahedral normal stresses are normal to the octahedral
surfaces, and are equal to the average of the principal stresses.
 Octahedral shear stresses lie on the octahedral surfaces.

Fig. 5–10
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Octahedral Shear Stress Failure Theory
 Theory: Yielding begins when the octahedral shear stress in a
stress element exceeds the octahedral shear stress in a tension
test specimen at yielding.
 The octahedral shear stress is

 Fora tension test specimen at yielding, s1 = Sy , s2 = s3 = 0.

Substituting into Eq. (5–16),

 The theory predicts failure when Eq. (5–16) exceeds

Eq. (5–17). This condition reduces to

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Failure Theory in Terms of von Mises Stress
 Equation is identical to Eq. (5–10) from Distortion Energy
approach
 Identical conclusion for:

◦ Distortion Energy
◦ Octahedral Shear Stress
◦ Shear Energy
◦ Von Mises
◦ Von Mises – Hencky

Sy
n


Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 DE Theory Compared to Experimental Data
 Plot von Mises stress on
principal stress axes to
compare to experimental
data (and to other failure
theories)
 DE curve is typical of data
 Note that typical equates
to a 50% reliability from a
design perspective
 Commonly used for
analysis situations
 MSS theory useful for
design situations where Fig. 5–15
higher reliability is desired
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Shear Strength Predictions
 For pure shear loading, Mohr’s circle shows that sA = −sB = t
 Plotting this equation on principal stress axes gives load line for
pure shear case
 Intersection of pure shear load line with failure curve indicates
shear strength has been reached
 Each failure theory predicts shear strength to be some fraction of
normal strength

Fig. 5–9 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Shear Strength Predictions
 For MSS theory, intersecting pure shear load line with failure
line [Eq. (5–5)] results in

Fig. 5–9
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Shear Strength Predictions
 For DE theory, intersection pure shear load line with failure
curve [Eq. (5–11)] gives

 Therefore, DE theory predicts shear strength as

Fig. 5–9 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5–1

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5–1 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5–1 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5–1 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5–1 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5–1 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Example 5–1 (continued)

Fig. 5−11 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5–1 (continued)

Fig. 5−11 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Mohr Theory
 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
 Coulomb-Mohr Theory
 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
 Coulomb-Mohr Theory
 From the geometry, derive
the failure criteria

Fig. 5−13

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Coulomb-Mohr Theory
 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

 Coulomb-Mohr Theory

 Toplot on principal stress axes, consider three cases

 Case 1: sA ≥ sB ≥ 0 For this case, s1 = sA and s3 = 0
◦ Eq. (5−22) reduces to

 Case 2: sA ≥ 0 ≥ sB For this case, s1 = sA and s3 = sB

◦ Eq. (5-22) reduces to

 Case 3: 0 ≥ sA ≥ sB For this case, s1 = 0 and s3 = sB

◦ Eq. (5−22) reduces to

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Coulomb-Mohr Theory
 Plotthree 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
 Coulomb-Mohr Theory
 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

Example 5–2

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5–2 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−3

Fig. 5−16 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−3 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−3 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Example 5−4

Fig. 5−17
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 5−4 (continued)

Fig. 5−17 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−4 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−4 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Failure Theories for Brittle Materials
 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

Fig. 5−19 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 Theory: Failure occurs when the maximum principal stress in a
stress element exceeds the strength.
 Predicts failure when

 For plane stress,

 Incorporating design factor,

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Normal Stress Theory
 Plot on principal stress axes
 Unsafe in part of fourth quadrant
 Not recommended for use
 Included for historical comparison

Fig. 5−18 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Brittle Coulomb-Mohr
 Same as previously derived, using ultimate strengths for failure
 Failure equations dependent on quadrant

Quadrant condition Failure criteria

Fig. 5−14

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Brittle Failure Experimental Data
 Coulomb-Mohr is
conservative in 4th quadrant
 Modified Mohr criteria
adjusts to better fit the data
in the 4th quadrant

Fig. 5−19

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Modified-Mohr
Quadrant condition Failure criteria

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−5

Fig. 5−16
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 5−5 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−5 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Selection of Failure Criteria
 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

Selection of Failure Criteria in Flowchart Form

Fig. 5−21
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Introduction to Fracture Mechanics
 Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) analyzes crack
growth during service
 Assumes cracks can exist before service begins, e.g. flaw,
inclusion, or defect
 Attempts to model and predict the growth of a crack
 Stress concentration approach is inadequate when notch radius
becomes extremely sharp, as in a crack, since stress
concentration factor approaches infinity
 Ductile materials often can neglect effect of crack growth, since
local plastic deformation blunts sharp cracks
 Relatively brittle materials, such as glass, hard steels, strong
aluminum alloys, and steel below the ductile-to-brittle transition
temperature, benefit from fracture mechanics analysis

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Quasi-Static Fracture
 Though brittle fracture seems instantaneous, it actually takes
time to feed the crack energy from the stress field to the crack
for propagation.
 A static crack may be stable and not propagate.
 Some level of loading can render a crack unstable, causing it to
propagate to fracture.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Quasi-Static Fracture
 Foundation work for fracture mechanics established by Griffith
in 1921
 Considered infinite plate with an elliptical flaw
 Maximum stress occurs at (±a, 0)

Fig. 5−22
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Quasi-Static Fracture
 Crack growth occurs when energy release rate from applied
loading is greater than rate of energy for crack growth
 Unstable crack growth occurs when rate of change of energy
release rate relative to crack length exceeds rate of change of
crack growth rate of energy

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Crack Modes and the Stress Intensity Factor
 Threedistinct modes of crack propagation
◦ Mode I: Opening crack mode, due to tensile stress field
◦ Mode II: Sliding mode, due to in-plane shear
◦ Mode III: Tearing mode, due to out-of-plane shear
 Combination of modes possible
 Opening crack mode is most common, and is focus of this text

Fig. 5−23
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Mode I Crack Model
 Stress field on dx dy element at crack tip

Fig. 5−24

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Intensity Factor
 Common practice to define stress intensity factor

 Incorporating KI, stress field equations are

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Intensity Modification Factor

 Stressintensity factor KI is a function of geometry, size, and

shape of the crack, and type of loading
 For various load and geometric configurations, a stress intensity
modification factor b can be incorporated

 Tables for b are available in the literature

 Figures 5−25 to 5−30 present some common configurations

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Intensity Modification Factor
 Off-center crack in plate in
longitudinal tension
 Solid curves are for crack tip
at A
 Dashed curves are for tip at B

Fig. 5−25

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Intensity Modification Factor
 Plate loaded in longitudinal
tension with crack at edge
 For solid curve there are no
constraints to bending
 Dashed curve obtained with
bending constraints added

Fig. 5−26

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Intensity Modification Factor
 Beams of rectangular cross
section having an edge crack

Fig. 5−27

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Intensity Modification Factor
 Plate in tension containing circular hole with two cracks

Fig. 5−28
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Stress Intensity Modification Factor
 Cylinder loaded in axial tension having a radial crack of depth a
extending completely around the circumference

Fig. 5−29
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Stress Intensity Modification Factor
 Cylinder subjected to internal
pressure p, having a radial crack
in the longitudinal direction of
depth a

Fig. 5−30

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fracture Toughness
 Crack propagation initiates when the stress intensity factor
reaches a critical value, the critical stress intensity factor KIc
 KIc is a material property dependent on material, crack mode,
processing of material, temperature, loading rate, and state of
stress at crack site
 Also know as fracture toughness of material
 Fracture toughness for plane strain is normally lower than for
plain stress
 KIc is typically defined as mode I, plane strain fracture toughness

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Typical Values for KIc

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Brittle Fracture Factor of Safety
 Brittlefracture should be considered as a failure mode for
◦ Low-temperature operation, where ductile-to-brittle transition
temperature may be reached
◦ Materials with high ratio of Sy/Su, indicating little ability to
absorb energy in plastic region
 A factor of safety for brittle fracture

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−6

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−6 (continued)

Fig. 5−25
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 5−6 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−7

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−7 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−7 (continued)

Fig. 5−26 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 5−7 (continued)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design