Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Donate Today!

Do you enjoy these
technical forums?
Donate Today! Click Here

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?Helpful Member!(3) 

EricZhao (Automotive) (OP)
13 May 05 16:51
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?

Thanks,
Drej (Mechanical)
13 May 05 17:11
> 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 --
johnhors (Aerospace)
13 May 05 18:49
Another correction , it's Goodman not Goldman ! (as in the Goodman diagram)
gwolf (Aeronautics)
30 May 05 8:04
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.
Helpful Member!  feajob (Aerospace)
31 May 05 6:38
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.
               
Helpful Member!  rb1957 (Aerospace)
31 May 05 11:21
i'd avoid von mises, 'cause it makes everything (compression particularly) positive, therefore confusable with tension stresses.  
i'd prefer max. principal
EricZhao (Automotive) (OP)
31 May 05 16:45
Thanks all for your inputs.

feajob> A quick Q. How is alpha defined?

Thank u.
rb1957 (Aerospace)
31 May 05 16:50
i'd expect alpha = sigmax/sigmay
feajob (Aerospace)
1 Jun 05 7:04
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.
feajob (Aerospace)
1 Jun 05 12:38
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
AzimiAR (Mechanical)
2 Jun 05 3:20
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.
diduan (Aerospace)
25 Jul 05 5:36
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
cbrn (Mechanical)
25 Jul 05 5:55
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
Modey003 (Materials)
26 Jul 05 9:02
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
gwolf (Aeronautics)
26 Jul 05 16:25
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.

feajob (Aerospace)
27 Jul 05 6:15
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
gwolf (Aeronautics)
27 Jul 05 8:24
Yes feajob, I can see that you know what you are doing. Signed VonMises is not too bad.

Modey003 (Materials)
27 Jul 05 10:02
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
rb1957 (Aerospace)
27 Jul 05 11:22
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.
Helpful Member!  zcp (Mechanical)
28 Jul 05 11:52
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
www.phoenix-engineer.com

rb1957 (Aerospace)
28 Jul 05 13:07
umm, so will max. principal
cbrn (Mechanical)
5 Aug 05 3:11
zcp, rb1957,
I think you're both right. as I said before, VonMises, MaxPrincipal, Stress Intensity, etc, are all based upon ASSUMPTIONS (as every analytical theory does, anyway), and neither can completely capture the behaviour of "real" materials over all the possible stress fields: there are cases where MP becomes totally unrealistic, others where VM will under-estimate the equivalent stress. Because the crucial point is this: we always want to reconduct a stress field in a point to a single "sigma" value in this point...
Finally, I think it's important to refer to the Norms that are valid for the country you work in (or that are requested by the customer, it depends): for ex., if you refer to ASME then you will be obliged to carry all the calculations with Stress Intensity, no matter if you disagree or not in some points...

Regards

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close