von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis? 3

• May 13, 2005

• #2

Drej

Mechanical

Jul 31, 2002

971

> When the fatigue life is considered. Mean Stress and stress amplitude governs according to Goldman’s theory. Does the stress refer to von Mises or principle stress?

Neither. Fatigue calculations are *usually* based on either PRINCIPAL stresses (not PRINCIPLE) or STRESS INTENSITY (first principal minus third principal), depending on what you're looking at, the code you're dealing with or potentially lots of other things.

Cheers,

-- drej --

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• May 13, 2005

• #3

johnhors

Aerospace

Jan 21, 2004

1,021

Another correction , it's Goodman not Goldman ! (as in the Goodman diagram)

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• May 30, 2005

• #4

gwolf

New member

May 30, 2005

182

Drej is correct, however using principals is overly conservative but safe. If you can pass the component using a stress range based on Max Principal and Min Principal at the same location for your cycle, all well and good. If this causes problems you will have to look at the range of each stress component and make a judgement about which ones to use for lifing. I could say more but it would take too long.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• May 31, 2005

1
• #5

feajob

Aerospace

Aug 19, 2003

161

If we think about the multiaxial fatigue problems and we consider alpha as a biaxiality ratio then

for -1<alpha<0 Signed Tresca is very conservative
Signed von Mises is conservative

for alpha=0 (uniaxial) both are O.K.

for 0<alpha<1 Signed Tresca is O.K.
Signed von Mises is non-conservative

for alpha=1 (equibiaxial) both are O.K.

Ref. MSC.Fatigue

http://www.geocities.com/fea_tek/

A.A.Y.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• May 31, 2005

1
• #6

rb1957

Aerospace

Apr 15, 2005

16,003

i'd avoid von mises, 'cause it makes everything (compression particularly) positive, therefore confusable with tension stresses.
i'd prefer max. principal

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• May 31, 2005

• Thread starter
• #7

EricZhao

Automotive

May 6, 2005

66

Thanks all for your inputs.

feajob> A quick Q. How is alpha defined?

Thank u.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• May 31, 2005

• #8

rb1957

Aerospace

Apr 15, 2005

16,003

i'd expect alpha = sigmax/sigmay

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jun 1, 2005

• #9

feajob

Aerospace

Aug 19, 2003

161

Biaxiality ratio (alpha) is the ratio of the minimum and maximum principal stresses at a location on the surface of a component.

I had experience with Signed Von Mises, in my cases it predict (about) 5 percent longer life than Signed Tresca.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jun 1, 2005

• #10

feajob

Aerospace

Aug 19, 2003

161

Based on MSC.Fatigue Documentations (in strain life analysis) Max. principal is a non conservative choice when 0. < alpha <= 1.

But is O.K. when -1 < alpha < 0

AAY

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jun 2, 2005

• #11

AzimiAR

Mechanical

May 29, 2005

1

If you want to design base on fracture mechanic, you shoud use principle stress but if your design is base on yield stress it's suppose to use von Mises theory.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 25, 2005

• #12

diduan

Aerospace

Jul 25, 2005

2

Hallo,
i have an ANSYS rst-file from a PSD analysis and have to calculate the fatigue life of the component using nCode´s FE-Fatigue. Do you know if the program (FE-Fatigue) takes in account the sigma value, as the stresses from the Ansys calculation are 1 sigma values.
Thanks

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 25, 2005

• #13

cbrn

Mechanical

Jun 28, 2005

1,066

Hi,
IMHO you can't say "a priori" which criteria you should follow, because any criteria encomprises "safe" stress states that are good for some applications and bad for others. In other terms, depending on the stres state a criteria can be over- or under-conservative. The best example is if you compare VonMises with Trescà-Guest, as it has been pointed out by Feajob.
In the USA the stress intensity is commonly used (SINT in Ansys), while in Europe the convention is to use VonMises (SEQV in Ansys), as you can see if you compare ASME norms to EN. ASME are known to be extremely conservative overall (i.e., on the other hand, extremely safe) because they use both conservative criteria (Trescà-Guest "everywhere"!) and conservative limits.

Just my two-pence thoughts...

Regards

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 26, 2005

• #14

Modey003

Materials

Apr 25, 2005

8

Most fatigue data are gathered using uniaxial loading. The stress amplitude you are plotting is the stress amplitude along the uniaxial direction. This is your principal direction.

I imagine the von mises stress could be a concern for ductile materials during cyclical loading. For instance, 1100 soft aluminum will exhibit plastic deformation during fatigue loading at low frequencies. In this case, the Von Mises stress can be a concern. However, for brittle materials the principal stresses should be used since tensile forces propagate the fatigue crack.

Regards
modey

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 26, 2005

• #15

gwolf

New member

May 30, 2005

182

Modey003, you are mixing up static failure theory with fatigue theory. You should never use VonMises for fatigue.

Use worst principal at each loading condition to be conservative or look at stress ranges for individual stress components, and even biaxial effects if you are near to the line.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 27, 2005

• #16

feajob

Aerospace

Aug 19, 2003

161

gwolf,
I think that it depends on the biaxiality ratio in your specific problem. We cannot say that signed Von Mises is never correct for fatigue analysis. Please see my previous posts.

AAY

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 27, 2005

• #17

gwolf

New member

May 30, 2005

182

Yes feajob, I can see that you know what you are doing. Signed VonMises is not too bad.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 27, 2005

• #18

Modey003

Materials

Apr 25, 2005

8

My whole point is that microscopic level there can be plastic yeilding depending on the material. I have even seen this mechanism in plastics (which von mises is also a good criterion) and soft metals.

The failure criterion depends on many factors: material, loading conditions, and environment. For instance high frequncy cyclic loading rates can cause a fatigue crack to propagate brittlely. While low frequecies can cause a ductile crack to propagate. To sum this up when trying to design against fatigue crack propagation in FEA modeling the criterion you use depends on various factors.

Modey

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 27, 2005

• #19

rb1957

Aerospace

Apr 15, 2005

16,003

but if your getting plasticity then you should not be using linear elastic fracture mechanics (my assumption !) ...
and if you're using non-linear fracture mechanics then you'll be using J-integrals ... no ?
particularly if we're splitting hairs (or heirs) about which stress to apply (max. principal or von mises).

the logic about using max. principal is that it "best" represents mode 1 (tension) crack growth. using von mises (as a failure criterion) includes shear into the equation and if there's much difference (between vM and maxP) then you're in a mixed mode crack scenario, and i really don't know where you'll get the data for this (crack geometry models, material crack growth, residual strength) ... but then maybe you auto guys are concerned with different aspects of FM (materials, geometry, design constraints, regulations) than i've experienced in aero.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Jul 28, 2005

1
• #20

zcp

Mechanical

Jul 28, 2005

237

If you are using Modified Goodman and have a biaxial state of stress, your mean and alternating stresses (for the formula) must account for the biaxial state. Vonmises (alternating and mean) based on the max and min stress for each direction is an excellent way to do that.

ZCP

http://www.phoenix-engineer.com

 

Upvote 0 Downvote