Mechatronics Engineering

Department
Design of Machine
Elements
Lecture (2)

Lecturer:
Dr. Farag I. haider

1
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

 Failure of the part would endanger human life, or the part is made in
extremely large quantities; consequently, an elaborate testing program
is justified during design.

 The part is made in large enough quantities that a moderate series of

tests is feasible.

 The part is made in such small quantities that testing is not justified at
all; or the design must be completed so rapidly that there is not enough
time for testing.

 Experimental test data is better, but generally only warranted for large
quantities or when failure is very costly (in time, expense, or life)

 The part has already been designed, manufactured, and tested and
found to be unsatisfactory. Analysis is required to understand why the
part is unsatisfactory and what to do to improve it.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Ductility and Percent Elongation

⚫ 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 % Ɛ  5%

⚫ Brittle Materials have % Ɛ < 5%

⚫ For machine members subject to repeated or shock or impact

loads, materials with % Ɛ > 12% are recommended.

Ductile materials - extensive plastic deformation and
energy absorption (toughness) before fracture

Brittle materials - little plastic deformation and low energy

absorption before failure
 DUCTILE VS BRITTLE FAILURE
• Classification:

(a) (b) (c)

• Ductile Ductile: Brittle: No

fracture is warning before warning
fracture
desirable!
 DUCTILE FAILURE
• Evolution to failure:

“cup and cone” fracture

• Resulting
fracture
surfaces
(steel)

50 µm
particles serve as void
nucleation sites.
1 µm = 1 X 10-6 m = 0.001 mm
 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
Factors
⚫ Note the trend for higher
Kt at sharper discontinuity
radius, and at greater
disruption

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

Failure theories are used to predict if failure would occur under

any given state of stress

The generally accepted theories are:

⚫Ductile materials (yield criteria)
oMaximum shear stress (MSS),
oDistortion energy (DE),
oDuctile Coulomb-Mohr (DCM),

⚫Brittle materials (fracture criteria)

oMaximum normal stress (MNS),
oBrittle Coulomb-Mohr (BCM),
oModified Mohr (MM),
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Failure Theories

The failure of a statically loaded member in uni-axial tension or compression is relatively easy to predict. One can simply compare the stress incurred with the
strength of the material. However, when the loading conditions are less simple (i.e. biaxial loading, sheer stresses) then we must use some method to compare
multiple stresses to a single strength value. Below are four common criteria for predicting failure and determining factors of safety as well as lists of some common
materials for which each would be preferred.
Distortion-Energy Hypothesis (DE)
The distortion-energy hypothesis predicts
Brittle behavior Ductile behavior
Modified II-Mohr that failure will occur in a member when the distortion energy per
This failure criteria is a modification of the Mohr Hypothesis unit volume of the member equals the distortion energy in the
that best accounts for the experimentally produced data member when it is uni-axially stressed to its yield stress.
Maximum Shear
from fracture tests of brittle materials (i.e. strain to failure < B
0.05). It is applicable when the |SUC| > SUT and σB is less Failure when:  ' Sy von Mises
than -SUT.  B  ff Sy
Applicable Material
Where S ut  0 .05  0 .05 Examples:
0   A  S ut  S ut   B  S ut Aluminum  Sy
Wrought,
S Sy A
Drawn,
 A  ut A
or Rolled
n
Most Steels
Where  Sy
0   A  Sut  Suc   B  S ut  S Where the von Mises
1
ut stress is:
[(   2 ) 2  ( 2   3 ) 2  ( 3   1 ) 2 ]  2
n A n  S ut 2  '  1 
 1 ( B ) Sut  Suc ? S yt  S yc ? Yes 2
S ut  S uc  S ut No Yes No  
Sy
The safety factor can be described by: n
Applicable Material Examples: '
Gray Cast Iron
Ceramics
 S uc
Coulomb Mohr Hypothesis
The Coulomb Mohr Hypothesis Predicts that failure will occur in a multiaxial state of stress when the larger Mohr
circle associated with the state of stress at the critical location becomes tangent to, or exceeds the bounds of the
Maximum-Normal-Stress (MNS) Hypothesis  B failure envelope established by conditions of failure in simple tensile, compressive, and torsion tests using
The maximum-normal-stress theory states that failure occurs specimens of the same material and condition. Maximum Stress  B
whenever one of the three principal stresses equals or Case Principl Theory S ut
S ut Mohr ' s
exceeds the strength. e Stress Requireme
Using  1   2   3 failure occurs when  A  0,  B  0 nts
1 (1st A  S t ,  B S t
Sc
Quadrant)  S uc S ut
2 (3rd  A  0,  B  0  A  S c , B  S c A
 3   S uc  S uc
U

 1  S ut or S ut
 A
Quadrant)
3 (4th  A  0,  B  0
A B 1
 
ni
ax
ial
S
St Sc n T t

Quadrant)  Sc S t ens
Correlating the hypothesis to a factor of safety gives 4 (2nd  A  B 1 io
 A  0,  B  0   n
St Sc n
S ut  S uc  S uc
Quadrant)
n or n Uniaxial
 S uc
3
Compre

1 ssion

The left circle is for uniaxial compression at the limiting

Applicable Material Examples:
Applicable Material Example: Iconel® compression stress Sc of the material. Likewise, the right
Cast Aluminum Certain Titanium Alloys circle is for uniaxial tension at the limiting tension stress St
 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 1 /2.
⚫ At yielding, when 1 = 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 1 ≥ 2 ≥ 3,

⚫ Incorporating a design factor n

⚫ Or solving for factor of safety

Sy / 2
n
 max

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)

⚫ To compare to experimental data, express max in terms of

principal stresses and plot.
⚫ To simplify, consider a plane stress state (one of the principal
stress is zero)
⚫ Let A and B represent the two non-zero principal stresses, then
order them with the zero principal stress such that 1 ≥ 2 ≥ 3
⚫ Assuming A ≥ B there are three cases to consider
◦ Case 1: A ≥ B ≥ 
◦ Case 2: A ≥  ≥ B
◦ Case 3: 0 ≥ A ≥ B

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)

⚫ Case 1: A ≥ B ≥ 
◦ For this case, 1 = A and 3 = 0
◦ Eq. (5–1) reduces to A ≥ Sy
◦ A = Sy/n.
⚫ Case 2: A ≥  ≥ B
◦ For this case, 1 = A and 3 = B
◦ Eq. (5–1) reduces to A − B ≥ Sy
◦ A − B ) = Sy/n.
⚫ Case 3: 0 ≥ A ≥ B
◦ For this case, 1 =  and 3 = B
◦ Eq. (5–1) reduces to B ≤ −Sy
◦ B = -Sy/n.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (MSS)

⚫ Plot three cases on

principal stress axes
⚫ Case 1: A ≥ B ≥ 
◦ A ≥ Sy
⚫ Case 2: A ≥  ≥ B
◦ A − B ≥ Sy
⚫ Case 3: 0 ≥ A ≥ B
◦ B ≤ −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