×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

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

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

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?3

von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

(OP)
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,

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

> 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 --

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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.

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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.

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

(OP)

feajob> A quick Q. How is alpha defined?

Thank u.

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

i'd expect alpha = sigmax/sigmay

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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.

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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.

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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.

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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.

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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.

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

umm, so will max. principal

RE: von Mises or principle stress for fatigue analysis?

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

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!