Principal Stress, VonMises Stress , Fatigue

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparison of Principal Stress and Von Mises Stress in the context of aluminum materials subjected to dynamic loads. Participants explore their implications for predicting fatigue life, the conditions under which each stress type is preferred, and how to distinguish between tensile and compressive stress in these analyses.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why Principal Stress is used for aluminum under dynamic loads instead of Von Mises Stress.
  • There is a suggestion that Von Mises is typically used for ductile materials in fatigue studies, while Principal Stresses are preferred for brittle materials.
  • One participant notes that the choice between stress types depends on the failure mode being considered, such as whether failure occurs due to yield stress or strain energy.
  • Another participant emphasizes that in fatigue analysis, the direction of Principal Stress is crucial for crack growth, particularly distinguishing between tensile and compressive stresses.
  • It is mentioned that design rules may restrict the use of Von Mises or Principal Stress for fatigue analysis, often for safety reasons.
  • A participant points out that Von Mises Stress does not retain information about tensile or compressive nature, as it is always presented as a positive value.
  • There is a request for clarification on the definition of Von Mises Stress, indicating a need for conceptual understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate application of Principal Stress versus Von Mises Stress, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved regarding their use in fatigue analysis.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the lack of consensus on the conditions under which each stress type should be applied and the implications of using one over the other for fatigue life predictions. Additionally, the definitions and interpretations of stress types may vary among participants.

harsunra
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
1. I didnt understand why some people extracting Principal stress for aluminum material

which is subjected to dynamic loads(acceleration).Why not Von Mises?

2. Which has more advantages in predicting Fatigue Life and how?

3. How will you distinguish between tensile and compressive stress, when extracting

Principal & Von Mises.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Sorry if this is stating things that you already know.

The difference (from the way I understand it) is under what conditions the analyst thinks the part will fail. I don't think it changes just because it is a fatigue study.

For ductile materials Von Mises is usually used (in school we used this for fatigue) and for brittle materials Principal stresses are normally used.

If you think the part will fail when the tensile (or compressive) stress goes above the materials yield stress then you would look at the Principal stresses. You would use Von Mises if you think the part will fail when the strain energy goes above the yield stress of the material.

I don't know a way of extracting the Principal stresses if you only have the resulting Von Mises.

HTH,
Dan
 
Choosing which stress vector will be applied is not only a matter of ductility-brittleness. In ductile materials fatigue, the crack's growth is governed by the direction of the principal stress and whether this principal stress is tensile or compressive. So, for example, in fatigue for weldings, you should verify which principal stress vector is more perpendicular to the path of the growing crack, and whether its fluctuation is tensile or compressive, as only the tensile stress cycle will make the crack grow.

Sometimes, the design rules do not allow you to apply von Mises stress (or the Principal stress components) for fatigue analysis, and you have to stick with one or the other. This is more for safety reasons than to be cost effective.

Compressive or tensile information is not kept after computing the von Mises equivalent stress, as it is always positive.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
19K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
12K