Single shear element in stress tensor: Finding Von Mises

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the application of the Von Mises yield criterion when analyzing a stress tensor with a single shear component. The stress tensor is represented as [0, τ, 0; τ, 0, 0; 0, 0, 0], leading to a Von Mises stress of √3 × τ. The participant questions the validity of this criterion in the context of shear stress calculations, particularly when comparing shear allowable and uniaxial yield allowable values. The example provided illustrates a torque application resulting in a calculated shear stress of 28,294 psi and a Von Mises stress of 49,007 psi, highlighting the importance of conservative design choices.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Von Mises yield criterion
  • Knowledge of shear stress calculations in materials
  • Familiarity with torque and shear allowable values
  • Basic concepts of stress tensors
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the Von Mises yield criterion
  • Study the relationship between shear stress and uniaxial yield stress
  • Explore the implications of using different yield criteria in design
  • Learn about stress analysis in torsional loading scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Mechanical engineers, materials scientists, and design engineers involved in stress analysis and material selection for components subjected to torsional loads.

jasc15
Messages
162
Reaction score
5
When finding the Von Mises of given a stress tensor who's only element is a single shear component (τ):

\begin{bmatrix}
0 & τ & 0\\
τ & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
the result is simply √3×τ. Is the Von Mises criterion not valid when considering a single component as in this example? I can't seem to reconcile that a calculated shear stress (say by a simple shaft twisting where τ=Tc/J) should be multiplied by √3. I understand that when using the Von Mises yield criterion, it is to be compared to the uniaxial yield allowable, not the shear allowable. However, the yield allowable is not √3 greater than the shear allowable.

In the example I am actually considering there is also normal component, but I want to see the effect of the two components in isolation as well as combined
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I think this is consistent with the calculations of the Von Mises criterion. In the case of a pure shear stress,
b9639ecbd343db3d22c0be8c5155911c.png
according to the load scenario table in the page below.

See below information from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Mises_yield_criterion

Wikipedia.org said:
In the case of pure shear stress, [PLAIN]https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/4/d/44dcfff99c0c0c4fc2ab5177bb18be1f.png, while all other [PLAIN]https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/5/d/25d584aefa115a4f46e0d761fef717d8.png, von Mises criterion becomes:

[PLAIN]https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/c/3/3c3d2ee47e2ecaab57039f34a5cedcb9.png.
This means that, at the onset of yielding, the magnitude of the shear stress in pure shear is
7d2db2b2c90be143cb85c105105317da.png
times lower than the tensile stress in the case of simple tension.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the reply. How am I to understand this from the point of view of a simple strength of materials problem, where I am asked to find the shear stress in a shaft with an applied torque, and to compare it to the shear allowable for that material.

For example, a torque of 150 in*lb and a shaft radius of 0.15 in results in an applied shear stress of

τ = T*c/J = 150*0.15/(Π*.152) = 28,294 psi.

The shear allowable of the material I am working with is 31000 psi, and the uniaxial yield allowable is 36000 psi.

Using the simple shear stress calculated, I get a margin of safety of 31,000/28,294 -1 = 0.10

Using Von Mises, I get √3*28,294 psi = 49,007 psi, with a resulting margin of 36,000/49,007 -1 = -0.27

Is this simply a matter of choosing how conservative you want to be in design? I wouldn't be comfortable using only the first method knowing the second method results in negative margin.
 
Generally speaking I would lean towards the Von Mises criterion for your margin, especially since you have such a small shaft for the torque.
 

Similar threads

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