3.

10 Failure and Reliability

Any device or object that is designed and manufactured is expected to operate as advertised over a
stated length of time. If the product does not function as expected then it is considered a failure.
Failure can have many reasons. Failure is usually associated with reliability - the expression of
confidence that the product will deliver on its expectation.
Failure also has a practical side effect which is best attributed to Taguchi :When a product fails, you
must replace it or fix it. In either case, you must track it, transport it, and apologize for it. Losses will be
much greater than the costs of manufacture, and none of this expense will necessarily recoup the loss
to your reputation.
Failure is serious business and designing for actual failure is impossible because of so many
variables. Instead we try and ensure that the design meets the Failure Criteria. There is no unique
criteria and the designer usually satisfies the failure criteria that is appropriate for the type of the
product and its underlying design.
Many failure criteria are based on principal stresses rather than the standard engineering stress and
strain. Since we can calculate the principal stress form the value of the engineering stress and strain
at every point, we examine some of the popular failure criteria. Prior to application of such criteria we
should also consider the fact that if the design is stretched beyond the elastic domain then the residual
strain on the structure changes the design forever. If the bridge does not return back to its original
state it is likely to cause additional problems in many ways.

3.10.1 Mechanical Structural Failures

For most designs we can investigate four types of failures.
a. Failure by elastic structural deflection ( > max)
b. Failure by structural yielding (max < )
c. Failure by Fracture ( = ult )
d. Progressive Failure (failure is built slowly during life - creep and fatigue)
There are failures that are difficult to quantify and difficult to investigate.
a. Operating environment (moisture, dirt, dust, corrosion)
b. Aging and shelf life
c. Unanticipated operating current and voltage levels
d. Unintended chemical reactions
e. Electromagnetic interference
f. Material properties may unexpectedly vary due to production and finish
The design/structural engineer must determine the possible modes of failure and establish criteria to
predict these failures. In order to account for these unpredictable variations a factor of safety (FS) is
usually adopted. For many structural and machine applications recommended FS are available. They
vary by state and country.

3.10.2 Maximum Structural Deflection

In the illustration below we start with an unloaded cantilever beam. We place an end load that causes
a maximum deflection at the end of the beam as shown. As the load is removed the beam should
return back to its horizontal position. As the load P is increased the deflection is increased but the
beam still returns to the undeformed position after load is removed. There is a maximum elastic

beam still returns to the undeformed position after load is removed. There is a maximum elastic
deflection that should not be exceeded.

Figure 3.10.1 Illustration of maximum structural deflection

This type of failure is prevalent in vibration when the amplitude is large that parts collide. Also beams
and shell may buckle under load. The failure criteria is applied on the maximum deflection of the
component that includes buckling load too. A factor of safety is assumed and the deflection must
remain less than the maximum elastic deflection.

3.10.3 Maximum Yield Stress

In most structural design, the maximum stress is kept below the yield stress (or proportional limit).
Instead of the deflection the stress is monitored. In linear elasticity we can assume that the stress at
maximum elastic deflection and maximum yield stress are pretty close by. This type of failure is used
for simple structures and simple loading in beams, shells, and plates.
For failure criteria, the designer must calculate the maximum stress of the component that include
buckling and an appropriate factor of safety to ensure the actual maximum stress will not exceed the
yield stress of the material.. Instead of the maximum stress, the failure criteria have evolved t include
principal stress like Tresca and Von Mises failure criteria.

3.10.4 Failure by Fracture

Failure by fracture is usually associated with brittle materials since ductile materials will have already
yielded and will suffer plastic deformation prior to fracture. Fracture will also depend on existing cracks
as these cause stress concentrations where local stresses will exceed any stress limit under
consideration.
For this type of failure the maximum principal stress must be calculated with an appropriate factor of
safety to ensure the stress is still within the yield limit.

3.10.4 Progressive Failure

During progressive failure, a small failure or small changes is added on to the component during
routine operations. This builds up to a sudden failure at a later date even it it is not apparent at the
current time. A micro crack is usually the culprit. As noted before this failure can happen due to creep,
due to fatigue, and due to changes in material property leading to a change in the stress-strain
behavior, due to small changes in the component.

During Creep failure there is usually

Increase in strain without increase in stress
Enhanced strain at high temperature operation
During fatigue failure there is usually
Change in stress level because of the change in the frequency of the load cycle
Repeated changes in the direction of load causing change in local material properties

3.10.5 Failure Criteria

The mechanical failures outline above are actually implemented by verifying that the component
satisfies some formal failure criteria. Now with software used for structural analysis it becomes easy to
obtain a detailed picture of stress, strain, displacement everywhere through structural simulation
software. The software can also report on multiple failure criteria as part of the solution. We look at
four popular criteria
i. Maximum Shear Stress Criterion (Trescas Hexagon)
ii. Maximum Distortion Energy Criterion (Von Mises)
iii. Maximum Normal Stress Criterion (Coulombs Criteria)
iv. Maximum Normal Stran Criterion (St. Venants Criteria)
A component will be safe under given loading if the stress at all critical points, including areas of stress
concentration, is less that than that recommended by one or more of the failure criteria indicated
above.

3.10.6 Maximum Shear Stress Criterion

This criteria is based on plane stress and useful for ductile materials.
It is believed that ductile materials will fail in slippage along an oblique surface due to
shear stress

Criteria:

Consider a cantilever beam with end load. The principal stress at evey point can be evaluated as
indicated below. The state of stress at every point can be translated through the principal stress as:

Figure 3.10.2 Regular and principal stresses

Alternate Criteria:

This leads to Trescas Hexagon with the criteria that the principal stresses at every point must lie
within the area of the Hexagon shown in Figure 3.10.3 for the component to be safe.

Figure 3.10.3 Trescas Hexagon

3.10.7 Maximum Distortion Energy Criterion (Von Mises)

A given structural component is safe
If the maximum value of the distortion energy per unit volume of the material is less
than the distortion energy per unit volume required to cause yield in a tensile-test specimen f the same
material

The distortion energy (ud) , which is the energy associated with the change of shape, is different from
the strain energy , which is the change in the volume of the material. These concepts are to early for
this first course in mechanics. However we can tie the distortion energy to the principal stresses. For
an isotropic material under plane stress with a modulus of rigidity G

Figure 3.10.4 Principal stress and alternate criteria for distortion energy

Alternate criteria

The structural component is safe if the principal stresses at every point is within the area enclosed by

The structural component is safe if the principal stresses at every point is within the area enclosed by
the ellipse. This is also regarded as the Von Mises Criteria.

3.10.8 Maximum Normal Stress Criterion

This failure criteria is applied to brittle materials where failure is expected through rupture or fracture. It
will be sudden with no yielding before failure. It would certainly apply to products created using
ceramic materials.

Criteria:
A given structural component is safe if the maximum normal stress in the component
reaches the ultimate stress in a tensile test specimen made of the same material

If the ultimate stress in tension and compression are the same the criteria is regarded as the
Coulombs criteria and can be summarized as follows:

Figure 3.10.5 Coulombs normal stress criteria

If the ultimate stress in tension and compression are different the criteria is regarded as the Mohrs
criteria and can be summarized as follows:

Figure 3.10.6 Mohrs normal stress criteria

3.10.9 Maximum Normal Strain Criterion

This failure criteria is applied to brittle materials where failure is expected through rupture or fracture. It
will be sudden with no yielding before failure.

Criteria:
A given structural component is safe if the maximum normal strain in the component
remains smaller than the ultimate normal strain in a tensile test specimen made of the same material

For material with the same strain in tension and compression the criteria is called the Saint Venants
criteria and can be summarized as:

Figure 3.10.7 St. Venants normal strain criteria

Alternate Criteria:
A structural component is safe as long as the principal stresses remain within the area of the plot shown above

3.10.10 Example 3.10.1

The state of stress, at a critical point on the PCB guide, due to warping is a concern. The result of
tensile stress tests of the same material establishes the yield stress as 250 MPa (Y).

Find the factor of safety with respect to yield, using (a) the maximum-shearing-stress criterion; (b) the
maximum-distortion-energy criterion

Data: x = 80 MPa; y = -40 MPa; xy = 25 MPa; Y = 250 MPa

Assumption: None (probably ductile material)
Solution:

(a) the maximum-shearing-stress criterion

(b) the maximum-distortion-energy criterion

Example 3.10.1 Using MATLAB

% Essential Foundations in Mechanics
% P. Venkataraman, July 2015
% 3.10 Failure Criteria
%---------------------------------------% Problem (2D state of stress)
% sigx = 80 (MPa); sigy = -40; tauxy = 25;SIGY = 250;
% Find: FOS with (i) max shera stress criterion;
% (ii) max distortion energy criterion
%
clc, clear, format compact, close all, format shortg
%% Data
sigx = 80; sigy = -40; tauxy = 25;

SIGY = 250;

%% Calculate principal stresses

sigav = 0.5*(sigx + sigy);
taum = sqrt((0.5*(sigx - sigy))^2 + tauxy^2);
siga = sigav + taum;
sigb = sigav - taum;

%% Apply failure criteria

TAUY = SIGY/2;
FS1 = TAUY/taum;
FS2 = sqrt(SIGY^2/(siga^2 - siga*sigb + sigb^2));
%% Print data/solution
fprintf('Example 3.10.1 - Failure Criteria\n')
fprintf('----------------------------------\n')
fprintf('State of Stress :\n')
fprintf('sigma x [MPa] : '),disp(sigx)
fprintf('sigma y [MPa] : '),disp(sigy)
fprintf('tauxy
[MPa] : '),disp(tauxy)
fprintf('Yield stress [MPa] : '),disp(SIGY)
fprintf('\n\n')
fprintf('Principal stress siga [MPa] : '),disp(siga)
fprintf('Principal stress sigb [MPa] : '),disp(sigb)
fprintf('Maximum shear stress [MPa] : '),disp(taum)
fprintf('\n\n')
fprintf('(i) FS based on Maximum shear Criteria :'),disp(FS1)
fprintf('(ii) FS based on Von Mises Criteria
:'),disp(FS2)
Fprintf('\n\n')

In the Command Window

Example 3.10.1 - Failure Criteria
---------------------------------State of Stress :
sigma x [MPa] :
80
sigma y [MPa] :
-40
tauxy
[MPa] :
25
Yield stress [MPa] :
250
Principal stress siga [MPa] :
Principal stress sigb [MPa] :
Maximum shear stress [MPa] :

85
-45
65

(i) FS based on Maximum shear Criteria :

(ii) FS based on Von Mises Criteria
:

1.9231
2.1863