Failures Resulting from Static Loading 241

MSS From Eq. (3–16),

s1 2 s3 0 2 (268.0)
tmax 5 5 5 34.0 kpsi
2 2
Sy y2 100y2
Answer n5 5 5 1.47
tmax 34.0
(e) The ordered principal stresses are s1 5 30, s2 5 30, s3 5 30 kpsi
DE From Eq. (5–12),
(30 2 30) 2 1 (30 2 30) 2 1 (30 2 30) 2 1y2
s¿ 5 c d 5 0 kpsi
2
Sy 100
Answer n5 5 Sq
s¿ 0
MSS From Eq. (5–3),
Sy 100
Answer n5 5 Sq
s1 2 s3 30 2 30
A tabular summary of the factors of safety is included for comparisons.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

DE 1.43 1.70 1.14 1.70 q

MSS 1.43 1.47 1.02 1.47 q

Since the MSS theory is on or within the boundary of the DE theory, it will always
predict a factor of safety equal to or less than the DE theory, as can be seen in the
table. For each case, except case (e), the coordinates and load lines in the sA, sB
plane are shown in Fig. 5–11. Case (e) is not plane stress. Note that the load line for
case (a) is the only plane stress case given in which the two theories agree, thus giving
the same factor of safety.

B
Figure 5–11
(a)
Load lines for Example 5–1. Sy

B (b)
A
–Sy
A
Sy

(c)

DE
–Sy MSS
Load lines

(d )
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 242 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

242 Mechanical Engineering Design

5–6 Coulomb-Mohr Theory for Ductile Materials

Not all materials have compressive strengths equal to their corresponding tensile val-
ues. For example, the yield strength of magnesium alloys in compression may be as
little as 50 percent of their yield strength in tension. The ultimate strength of gray
cast irons in compression varies from 3 to 4 times greater than the ultimate tensile
strength. So, in this section, we are primarily interested in those theories that can
be used to predict failure for materials whose strengths in tension and compression are
not equal.
Historically, the Mohr theory of failure dates to 1900, a date that is relevant to
its presentation. There were no computers, just slide rules, compasses, and French curves.
Graphical procedures, common then, are still useful today for visualization. The idea of
Mohr is based on three “simple” tests: tension, compression, and shear, to yielding if
the material can yield, or to rupture. It is easier to define shear yield strength as Ssy
than it is to test for it.
The practical difficulties aside, Mohr’s hypothesis was to use the results of ten-
sile, compressive, and torsional shear tests to construct the three circles of Fig. 5–12
defining a failure envelope tangent to the three circles, depicted as curve ABCDE in
the figure. The argument amounted to the three Mohr circles describing the stress
state in a body (see Fig. 3–12) growing during loading until one of them became
tangent to the failure envelope, thereby defining failure. Was the form of the failure
envelope straight, circular, or quadratic? A compass or a French curve defined the
failure envelope.
A variation of Mohr’s theory, called the Coulomb-Mohr theory or the internal-
friction theory, assumes that the boundary BCD in Fig. 5–12 is straight. With this
assumption only the tensile and compressive strengths are necessary. Consider the
conventional ordering of the principal stresses such that s1 $ s2 $ s3. The largest
circle connects s1 and s3, as shown in Fig. 5–13. The centers of the circles in Fig. 5–13
are C1, C2, and C3. Triangles OBiCi are similar, therefore

B2C2 2 B1C1 B3C3 2 B1C1

5
OC2 2 OC1 OC3 2 OC1
B2C2 2 B1C1 B3C3 2 B1C1
or, 5
C1C2 C1C3

Figure 5–12 
A
Three Mohr circles, one for Mohr failure curve
B
the uniaxial compression test,
one for the test in pure shear, C
D
E
and one for the uniaxial
tension test, are used to

define failure by the Mohr –Sc St
hypothesis. The strengths Sc
and St are the compressive and
tensile strengths, respectively;
they can be used for yield or
ultimate strength.
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 243 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

Failures Resulting from Static Loading 243

Figure 5–13 Coulomb-Mohr

failure line 
Mohr’s largest circle for a
general state of stress. B3
B2
B1

O

–Sc 3 C C2 1 C1 St
3

where B1C1 5 St y2, B2C2 5 (s1 2 s3)y2, and B3C3 5 Sc y2, are the radii of the right,
center, and left circles, respectively. The distance from the origin to C1 is St y2, to C3
is Scy2, and to C2 (in the positive s direction) is (s1 1 s3)y2. Thus
s1 2 s3 St Sc St
2 2
2 2 2 2
5
St s1 1 s3 St Sc
2 1
2 2 2 2
Canceling the 2 in each term, cross-multiplying, and simplifying reduces this equa-
tion to
s1 s3
2 51 (5–22)
St Sc
where either yield strength or ultimate strength can be used.
For plane stress, when the two nonzero principal stresses are sA $ sB, we have
a situation similar to the three cases given for the MSS theory, Eqs. (5–4) to (5–6).
That is, the failure conditions are
Case 1: sA $ sB $ 0. For this case, s1 5 sA and s3 5 0. Equation (5–22)
reduces to
sA $ St (5–23)

Case 2: sA $ 0 $ sB. Here, s1 5 sA and s3 5 sB, and Eq. (5–22) becomes

sA sB
2 $1 (5–24)
St Sc
Case 3: 0 $ sA $ sB. For this case, s1 5 0 and s3 5 sB, and Eq. (5–22) gives
sB # 2Sc (5–25)

A plot of these cases, together with the normally unused cases corresponding to
sB $ sA, is shown in Fig. 5–14.
For design equations, incorporating the factor of safety n, divide all strengths by n.
For example, Eq. (5–22) as a design equation can be written as
s1 s3 1
2 5 (5–26)
St Sc n
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 244 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

244 Mechanical Engineering Design

B
Figure 5–14
St
Plot of the Coulomb-Mohr
theory failure envelope for

on
plane stress states. A

gi
–Sc St

re
re
ilu
fa
on
N
–Sc

Since for the Coulomb-Mohr theory we do not need the torsional shear strength
circle we can deduce it from Eq. (5–22). For pure shear t, s1 5 2s3 5 t. The torsional
yield strength occurs when tmax 5 Ssy . Substituting s1 5 2s3 5 Ssy into Eq. (5–22)
and simplifying gives
Syt Syc
Ssy 5 (5–27)
Syt 1 Syc

EXAMPLE 5–2 A 25-mm-diameter shaft is statically torqued to 230 N ? m. It is made of cast 195-T6
aluminum, with a yield strength in tension of 160 MPa and a yield strength in com-
pression of 170 MPa. It is machined to final diameter. Estimate the factor of safety
of the shaft.

Solution The maximum shear stress is given by

16T 16(230)
t5 3 5 5 75(106 ) N/m2 5 75 MPa
pd p[25(1023 )] 3

The two nonzero principal stresses are 75 and 275 MPa, making the ordered princi-
pal stresses s1 5 75, s2 5 0, and s3 5 275 MPa. From Eq. (5–26), for yield,

1 1
Answer n5 5 5 1.10
s1 ySyt 2 s3 ySyc 75y160 2 (275)y170

Alternatively, from Eq. (5–27),

Syt Syc 160(170)
Ssy 5 5 5 82.4 MPa
Syt 1 Syc 160 1 170

and tmax 5 75 MPa. Thus,

Ssy 82.4
Answer n5 5 5 1.10
tmax 75
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 245 10/7/13 1:36 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

Failures Resulting from Static Loading 245

5–7 Failure of Ductile Materials Summary

Having studied some of the various theories of failure, we shall now evaluate them and
show how they are applied in design and analysis. In this section we limit our studies to
materials and parts that are known to fail in a ductile manner. Materials that fail in a
brittle manner will be considered separately because these require different failure theories.
To help decide on appropriate and workable theories of failure, Marin6 collected
data from many sources. Some of the data points used to select failure theories for
ductile materials are shown in Fig. 5–15.7 Mann also collected many data for copper
and nickel alloys; if shown, the data points for these would be mingled with those
already diagrammed. Figure 5–15 shows that either the maximum-shear-stress theory
or the distortion-energy theory is acceptable for design and analysis of materials that
would fail in a ductile manner.
The selection of one or the other of these two theories is something that you, the
engineer, must decide. For design purposes the maximum-shear-stress theory is easy,
quick to use, and conservative. If the problem is to learn why a part failed, then the
distortion-energy theory may be the best to use; Fig. 5–15 shows that the plot of the
distortion-energy theory passes closer to the central area of the data points, and thus
is generally a better predictor of failure. However, keep in mind that though a failure
curve passing through the center of the experimental data is typical of the data, its
reliability from a statistical standpoint is about 50 percent. For design purposes, a
larger factor of safety may be warranted when using such a failure theory.

Figure 5–15 2 /Sc Oct. shear Yielding (Sc = Sy )

Experimental data superposed 1.0 Ni-Cr-Mo steel

on failure theories. (From
AISI 1023 steel
Fig. 7.11, p. 257, Mechanical
2024-T4 Al
Behavior of Materials, 2nd ed.,
3S-H Al
N. E. Dowling, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1999.
Modified to show only ductile
failures.)
Max. shear

–1.0
1 /Sc
0 1.0

–1.0

6
Joseph Marin was one of the pioneers in the collection, development, and dissemination of material on
the failure of engineering elements. He has published many books and papers on the subject. Here the
reference used is Joseph Marin, Engineering Materials, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1952.
(See pp. 156 and 157 for some data points used here.)
7
Note that some data in Fig. 5–15 are displayed along the top horizontal boundary where sB $ sA. This is often
done with failure data to thin out congested data points by plotting on the mirror image of the line sB 5 sA.
246 Mechanical Engineering Design

For ductile materials with unequal yield strengths, Syt in tension and Syc in com-
pression, the Mohr theory is the best available. However, the theory requires the results
from three separate modes of tests, graphical construction of the failure locus, and
fitting the largest Mohr’s circle to the failure locus. The alternative to this is to use
the Coulomb-Mohr theory, which requires only the tensile and compressive yield
strengths and is easily dealt with in equation form.

EXAMPLE 5–3 This example illustrates the use of a failure theory to determine the strength of a mechan-
ical element or component. The example may also clear up any confusion existing
between the phrases strength of a machine part, strength of a material, and strength of
a part at a point.
A certain force F applied at D near the end of the 15-in lever shown in Fig. 5–16,
which is quite similar to a socket wrench, results in certain stresses in the cantilevered
bar OABC. This bar (OABC) is of AISI 1035 steel, forged and heat-treated so that it
has a minimum (ASTM) yield strength of 81 kpsi. We presume that this component
would be of no value after yielding. Thus the force F required to initiate yielding can
be regarded as the strength of the component part. Find this force.

Solution We will assume that lever DC is strong enough and hence not a part of the problem. A
1035 steel, heat-treated, will have a reduction in area of 50 percent or more and hence is
a ductile material at normal temperatures. This also means that stress concentration at
shoulder A need not be considered. A stress element at A on the top surface will be subjected
to a tensile bending stress and a torsional stress. This point, on the 1-in-diameter section,
is the weakest section, and governs the strength of the assembly. The two stresses are
M 32M 32(14F)
sx 5 5 3 5 5 142.6F
Iyc pd p(13 )
Tr 16T 16(15F )
tzx 5 5 3 5 5 76.4F
J pd p(13 )
Figure 5–16 y

2 in

O
A
12 in

1 12 -in D.
z B
1
8
-in R. 2 in C

1-in D.

15 in

F x
1 12 -in D.

D
 Failures Resulting from Static Loading 247

Employing the distortion-energy theory, we find, from Eq. (5–15), that

s¿ 5 (s2x 1 3t2zx ) 1y2 5 [(142.6F) 2 1 3(76.4F) 2 ] 1y2 5 194.5F

Equating the von Mises stress to Sy, we solve for F and get
Sy 81 000
Answer F5 5 5 416 lbf
194.5 194.5

In this example the strength of the material at point A is Sy 5 81 kpsi. The strength
of the assembly or component is F 5 416 lbf.
Let us apply the MSS theory for comparison. For a point undergoing plane stress
with only one nonzero normal stress and one shear stress, the two nonzero principal
stresses will have opposite signs, and hence the maximum shear stress is obtained
from the Mohr’s circle between them. From Eq. (3–14)

sx 2 142.6F 2
tmax 5 a b 1 t2zx 5 a b 1 (76.4F) 2 5 104.5F
B 2 B 2

Setting this equal to Syy2, from Eq. (5–3) with n 5 1, and solving for F, we get

81 000y2
F5 5 388 lbf
104.5

which is about 7 percent less than found for the DE theory. As stated earlier, the MSS
theory is more conservative than the DE theory.

EXAMPLE 5–4 The cantilevered tube shown in Fig. 5–17 is to be made of 2014 aluminum alloy
treated to obtain a specified minimum yield strength of 276 MPa. We wish to select a
stock-size tube from Table A–8 using a design factor nd 5 4. The bending load is
F 5 1.75 kN, the axial tension is P 5 9.0 kN, and the torsion is T 5 72 N ? m. What
is the realized factor of safety?

Solution The critical stress element is at point A on the top surface at the wall, where the bend-
ing moment is the largest, and the bending and torsional stresses are at their maximum
values. The critical stress element is shown in Fig. 5–17b. Since the axial stress and
bending stress are both in tension along the x axis, they are additive for the normal
stress, giving

P Mc 9 120(1.75)(do y2) 9 105do

sx 5 1 5 1 5 1 (1)
A I A I A I

where, if millimeters are used for the area properties, the stress is in gigapascals.
The torsional stress at the same point is

Tr 72(do y2) 36do

tzx 5 5 5 (2)
J J J
248 Mechanical Engineering Design

y
Figure 5–17

12
0m
m

F
z

P
T
x
(a)

zx

x x

z
(b)

For accuracy, we choose the distortion-energy theory as the design basis. The von
Mises stress from Eq. (5–15), is
s¿ 5 (s2x 1 3t2zx ) 1y2 (3)

On the basis of the given design factor, the goal for s9 is

Sy 0.276
s¿ # 5 5 0.0690 GPa (4)
nd 4
where we have used gigapascals in this relation to agree with Eqs. (1) and (2).
Programming Eqs. (1) to (3) on a spreadsheet and entering metric sizes from
Table A–8 reveals that a 42 3 5-mm tube is satisfactory. The von Mises stress is
found to be s95 0.06043 GPa for this size. Thus the realized factor of safety is
Sy 0.276
Answer n5 5 5 4.57
s¿ 0.06043
For the next size smaller, a 42 3 4-mm tube, s9 5 0.07105 GPa giving a factor of
safety of
Sy 0.276
n5 5 5 3.88
s¿ 0.07105
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 249 10/7/13 1:37 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

Failures Resulting from Static Loading 249

B
Figure 5–18
Graph of maximum-normal- Sut

stress (MNS) theory failure

envelope for plane stress states.
n
io
reg
re A
–Suc ilu Sut
nfa
No

– Suc

5–8 Maximum-Normal-Stress Theory

for Brittle Materials
The maximum-normal-stress (MNS) theory states that failure occurs whenever one of
the three principal stresses equals or exceeds the strength. Again we arrange the prin-
cipal stresses for a general stress state in the ordered form s1 $ s2 $ s3. This theory
then predicts that failure occurs whenever

s1 $ Sut  or  s3 # 2Suc (5–28)

where Sut and Suc are the ultimate tensile and compressive strengths, respectively, given
as positive quantities.
For plane stress, with the principal stresses given by Eq. (3–13), with sA $ sB,
Eq. (5–28) can be written as

sA $ Sut  or  sB # 2Suc (5–29)

which is plotted in Fig. 5–18.

As before, the failure criteria equations can be converted to design equations. We
can consider two sets of equations where sA $ sB as
Sut Suc
sA 5   or  sB 5 2 (5–30)
n n

As will be seen later, the maximum-normal-stress theory is not very good at

predicting failure in the fourth quadrant of the sA, sB plane. Thus, we will not recom-
mend the theory for use. It has been included here mainly for historical reasons.

5–9 Modifications of the Mohr Theory

for Brittle Materials
We will discuss two modifications of the Mohr theory for brittle materials: the Brittle-
Coulomb-Mohr (BCM) theory and the modified Mohr (MM) theory. The equations
provided for the theories will be restricted to plane stress and be of the design type
incorporating the factor of safety.
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 250 10/7/13 1:37 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

250 Mechanical Engineering Design

Figure 5–19 B , MPa

300
Biaxial fracture data of gray
cast iron compared with max. normal Sut
various failure criteria.
(Dowling, N. E., Mechanical ohr r
d. M Moh
mo lomb -
Behavior of Materials, 2nd ed., Cou
–Suc Sut
1999, p. 261. Reprinted by A, MPa
–700 –300 0 300
permission of Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.)
–Sut

To
rs
io
–300

n
Gray cast-iron data

–Suc
–700

The Coulomb-Mohr theory was discussed earlier in Sec. 5–6 with Eqs. (5–23) to
(5–25). Written as design equations for a brittle material, they are:

Brittle-Coulomb-Mohr
Sut
sA 5   sA $ sB $ 0 (5–31a)
n
sA sB 1
2 5   sA $ 0 $ sB (5–31b)
Sut Suc n
Suc
sB 5 2
  0 $ sA $ sB (5–31c)
n
On the basis of observed data for the fourth quadrant, the modified Mohr theory
expands the fourth quadrant with the solid lines shown in the second and fourth
quadrants of Fig. 5–19 (where the factor of safety, n, is set to one).

Modified Mohr
Sut
sA 5   sA $ sB $ 0
n
(5–32a)
sA $ 0 $ sB and  ` ` #1
sB
sA

5   sA $ 0 $ sB and  ` ` .1
(Suc 2 Sut )sA sB 1 sB
2 (5–32b)
Suc Sut Suc n sA
Suc
sB 5 2   0 $ sA $ sB (5–32c)
n
Data are still outside this extended region. The straight line introduced by the modi-
fied Mohr theory, for sA $ 0 $ sB and ƒ sBysA ƒ . 1, can be replaced by a parabolic
 Failures Resulting from Static Loading 251

relation which can more closely represent some of the data.8 However, this introduces
a nonlinear equation for the sake of a minor correction, and will not be presented here.

EXAMPLE 5–5 Consider the wrench in Ex. 5–3, Fig. 5–16, as made of cast iron, machined to dimen-
sion. The force F required to fracture this part can be regarded as the strength of the
component part. If the material is ASTM grade 30 cast iron, find the force F with
(a) Coulomb-Mohr failure model.
(b) Modified Mohr failure model.

Solution We assume that the lever DC is strong enough, and not part of the problem. Since
grade 30 cast iron is a brittle material and cast iron, the stress-concentration factors
Kt and Kts are set to unity. From Table A–24, the tensile ultimate strength is 31 kpsi
and the compressive ultimate strength is 109 kpsi. The stress element at A on the top
surface will be subjected to a tensile bending stress and a torsional stress. This loca-
tion, on the 1-in-diameter section fillet, is the weakest location, and it governs the
strength of the assembly. The normal stress sx and the shear stress at A are given by
M 32M 32(14F)
sx 5 Kt 5 Kt 3 5 (1) 5 142.6F
Iyc pd p(1) 3
Tr 16T 16(15F)
txy 5 Kts 5 Kts 3 5 (1) 5 76.4F
J pd p(1) 3
From Eq. (3–13) the nonzero principal stresses sA and sB are

142.6F 2 0 2
6 a b 1 (76.4F) 2 5 175.8F, 233.2F
142.6F 1 0
sA, sB 5
2 B 2
This puts us in the fourth-quadrant of the sA, sB plane.
(a) For BCM, Eq. (5–31b) applies with n 5 1 for failure.
sA sB 175.8F (233.2F)
2 5 3 2 51
Sut Suc 31(10 ) 109(103 )
Solving for F yields
Answer F 5 167 lbf
(b) For MM, the slope of the load line is ƒ sB ysA ƒ 5 33.2y175.8 5 0.189 , 1.
Obviously, Eq. (5–32a) applies.
sA 175.8F
5 51
Sut 31(103 )

Answer F 5 176 lbf

As one would expect from inspection of Fig. 5–19, Coulomb-Mohr is more conservative.

8
See J. E. Shigley, C. R. Mischke, R. G. Budynas, Mechanical Engineering Design, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 2004, p. 275.
bud98209_ch05_226-272.indd Page 252 10/7/13 1:37 PM f-496 /204/MH01996/bud98209_disk1of1/0073398209/bud98209_pagefiles

252 Mechanical Engineering Design

B
Figure 5–20 Modified Mohr

A plot of experimental data –Sut

points obtained from tests on 30 Sut
cast iron. Shown also are
the graphs of three failure
theories of possible usefulness A
–120 – Suc –90 –60 –30 30 Sut
for brittle materials. Note
points A, B, C, and D. To
avoid congestion in the first ASTM No. 30 C.I.
Sut = 31 kpsi, Suc = 109 kpsi –30 –Sut
quadrant, points have been B
plotted for sA . sB as well as A = –1
B
for the opposite sense. (Source Coulomb-Mohr
–60 A
of data: Charles F. Walton (ed.),
Iron Castings Handbook, Iron
Founders’ Society, 1971, Maximum-normal-stress
pp. 215, 216, Cleveland, Ohio.) –90

B –Suc
–120
A
C

D –150

5–10 Failure of Brittle Materials Summary

We have identified failure or strength of brittle materials that conform to the usual mean-
ing of the word brittle, relating to those materials whose true strain at fracture is 0.05 or
less. We also have to be aware of normally ductile materials that for some reason may
develop a brittle fracture or crack if used below the transition temperature. Figure 5–20
shows data for a nominal grade 30 cast iron taken under biaxial stress conditions, with
several brittle failure hypotheses shown, superposed. We note the following:
• In the first quadrant the data appear on both sides and along the failure curves of
maximum-normal-stress, Coulomb-Mohr, and modified Mohr. All failure curves are
the same, and data fit well.
• In the fourth quadrant the modified Mohr theory represents the data best, whereas
the maximum-normal-stress theory does not.
• In the third quadrant the points A, B, C, and D are too few to make any suggestion
concerning a fracture locus.

5–11 Selection of Failure Criteria

For ductile behavior the preferred criterion is the distortion-energy theory, although
some designers also apply the maximum-shear-stress theory because of its simplicity
and conservative nature. In the rare case when Syt ? Syc, the ductile Coulomb-Mohr
method is employed.
For brittle behavior, the original Mohr hypothesis, constructed with tensile, com-
pression, and torsion tests, with a curved failure locus is the best hypothesis we have.
However, the difficulty of applying it without a computer leads engineers to choose
modifications, namely, Coulomb Mohr, or modified Mohr. Figure 5–21 provides a