Failure Prediction For Static Loading

Failure Prediction for Static Loading
The concept of failure is central to the design

process, and it is by thinking in terms of
obviating failure that successful designs are
achieved.
Henry Petroski, Design Paradigms
Image: The Liberty Bell, a classic case of

brittle fracture.
©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

Axial Load on Plate with Hole
Figure 6.1 Rectangular plate with hole subjected to axial load. (a) Plate with
cross-sectional plane. (b) Half of plate with stress distribution.

Stress Concentrations for Plate with Hole
Figure 6.2 Stress concentration factor for rectangular plate with central hole. (a)
Axial Load. [Adapted from Collins (1981).]
Stress Concentrations for Plate with Hole (cont.)
Figure 6.2 Stress concentration factor for rectangular plate with central hole. (b)
Bending. [Adapted from Collins (1981).]
Stress Concentrations for Plate with Fillet
Figure 6.3 Stress concentration factor for rectangular plate with fillet. (a) Axial
Load. [Adapted from Collins (1981).]
Stress Concentrations for Plate with Fillet (cont.)
Figure 6.3 Stress concentration factor for rectangular plate with fillet. (b) Bending
Stress Concentrations for Plate with Groove
Figure 6.4 Stress concentration factor for rectangular plate with groove. (a) Axial
Stress Concentrations for Plate with Groove (cont.)
Figure 6.4 Stress concentration factor for rectangular plate with groove. (b)
Bending. [Adapted from Collins (1981).]
Stress Concentrations for Bar with Fillet
Figure 6.5 Stress concentration factor for round bar with fillet. (a) Axial load.
[Adapted from Collins (1981).]
Stress Concentrations for Bar with Fillet (cont.)
Figure 6.5 Stress concentration factor for round bar with fillet. (b) Bending.
Stress Concentrations for Bar with Fillet (cont.)
Figure 6.5 Stress concentration factor for round bar with fillet. (c) Torsion.
Stress Concentrations for Bar with Groove
Figure 6.6 Stress concentration factor for round bar with groove. (a) Axial load.
Stress Concentrations for Bar with Groove (cont.)
Figure 6.6 Stress concentration factor for round bar with groove. (b) Bending.
Stress Concentrations for Bar with Groove (cont.)
Figure 6.6 Stress concentration factor for round bar with groove. (c) Torsion.
Stress Contours in Bar
Figure 6.7 Bar with fillet axially loaded showing stress contours through a flat
plate for (a) square corners, (b) rounded corners (c) small groove, and (d) small
holes.

Modes of Crack Displacement
Figure 6.8 Three modes of crack displacement. (a) Mode I, opening; (b) mode II,
sliding; (c) mode III, tearing.

Yield Stress and Fracture Toughness Data
Material Yield S tress , S y Fracture Toug hness , K ci
ks i Mpa ksi in1 /2 Mpa m1 /2
Metals
Aluminum alloy 47 325 33 36
2024-T351
Aluminum alloy 73 505 26 29
7075-T651
Alloy steel 4340 238 1640 45.8 50.0
tempered at 260°C
Alloy steel 4340 206 1420 80.0 87.4
tempered at 425°C
Titanium alloy 130 910 40-60 44-66
Ti-6Al-4V
Ceramics
Aluminum oxide 2.7-4.8 3.0-5.3
Soda-lime glass 0.64-0.73 0.7-0.8
Concrete 0.18-1.27 0.2-1.4
Polymers
Polymethyl methacrylate 0.9 1.0
Polystyrene 0.73-1.0 0.8-1.1
Table 6.1 Yield stress and fracture toughness data for selected engineering
materials at room temperature [From ASM International (1989)].

Example 6.7
Figure 6.13 Cantilevered, round bar with

torsion applied to free end (used in Example
6.7). (a) Bar with coordinates and load; (b)
stresses acting on element; (c) Mohr’s circle
representation of stresses.

Example 6.8
Figure 6.14 Cantilevered, round bar with

torsion and transfer force applied to free end
(used in Example 6.8). (a) Bar with
coordinates and loads; (b) stresses acting on
top of bar and at wall; (c) Mohr’s circle
representation of stresses.

MNST Theory for Biaxial Stress State
Figure 6.15 Graphical representation

of maximum-normal-stress theory
(MNST) for biaxial stress state (z=0)

Internal Friction and Modified Mohr Theory
Figure 6.16 Internal friction

theory and modified Mohr theory
for failure prediction of brittle
materials.

Comparison of Failure Theories to Experiments
Figure 6.17: Comparison of experimental results to failure criterion. (a)

Brittle fracture. (b) ductile yielding.

Failure Prediction For Static Loading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure Prediction For Static Loading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure Prediction For Static Loading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure Prediction for Static Loading

The concept of failure is central to the design

Image: The Liberty Bell, a classic case of

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

Figure 6.13 Cantilevered, round bar with

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

Figure 6.14 Cantilevered, round bar with

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

Figure 6.15 Graphical representation

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

Figure 6.16 Internal friction

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

Figure 6.17: Comparison of experimental results to failure criterion. (a)

©1998 McGraw-Hill Hamrock, Jacobson and Schmid

You might also like