I.

INTRODUCTION

Why do material components fail?

Material components fail because the applied stresses exceed the material’s strength

What kind of stresses cause failure?

Under any load combination, there is always a combination of normal and shearing stresses
in the material.

What is the definition of Failure?

Obviously fracture but in some components yielding can also be considered as failure, if
yielding distorts the material in such a way that it no longer functions properly.
Which stress causes the material to fail?

Usually ductile materials are limited by their shear strengths. While brittle materials (ductility
< 5%) are limited by their tensile strengths.

Material Types

Metals can be broadly separated into DUCTILE metals and BRITTLE metals. Examples of
ductile metals include mild steel, copper etc . Cast iron is a typical brittle metal

Ductile materials

Extensive plastic deformation and energy absorption (toughness) before fracture.

Brittle materials

Little plastic deformation and low energy absorption before failure

II. FAILURE THEORIES

A number of theories of elastic failure are recognized including the following:

1. The Maximum Principal Stress Theory

2. The Maximum Shear Stress Theory
3. The Maximum Principal Strain Theory
4. The Maximum Distortion Energy Theory

1. Maximum Normal Stress Theory

Credited to Rankine “A material fails by yielding when the maximum principal stress
exceeds the tensile yield strength, or when the minimum principal stress exceeds the
compressive yield strength.” that is at the onset of yielding,

Where,

Region of failure is shown by Mohr’s circle.

Failure occurs when the circle extends beyond either of the dashed lines.
For materials possessing the same yield stress in tension and compression

In case of plane stress

This can be rewritten

2. The Maximum Shear Stress Theory

Proposed by Coulomb, it is also referred to as the Tresca or Guest criteria.

“Yielding will start when the maximum shear stress in the material equals the maximum
shear stress at yielding in a simple tension test.”
In case of plane stress, 𝜎3 = 0, there are two combinations of stresses to be considered.
When 𝜎1 and 𝜎2 are of opposite sign, i.e., one tensile, the other compressive, the maximum
shearing stress is (𝜎1 − 𝜎2)/ 2.
Thus the yield condition is given by

Which may be restated as,

When 𝜎1 and 𝜎2 carry the same sign, the maximum shearing stress equals(𝜎1 − 𝜎3)/2 = 𝜎1/2.
Then, for

we have the following yield condition, respectively:

• The boundary of hexagon marks the onset of yielding, with points outside the shaded region
representing a yielded state.
• Good agreement with experiment has been realized for ductile materials

3. The Maximum Principal Strain Theory

Referred to as St. Venant theory

“A material fails by yielding when the maximum principal strain exceeds the tensile yield
strain or when the minimum principal strain exceeds the compressive yield strain.”
Applying the generalized Hooke’s law,
For plane stress, 𝜎3 = 0, the yield conditions are described by,

For

4. The Maximum Distortion Energy Theory

Proposed by Huber in 1904 and further developed by von Mises and Hencky
“Failure by yielding occurs when, at any point in the body, the distortion energy per unit
volume in a state of combined stress becomes equal to that associated with yielding in a
simple tension test.
Comparison of Failure Theories
ADVANCE FAILURE THEORIES

1- Drucker-Prager Failure Criterion

2- William-Warnke Criterion

1 Drucker-Prager Failure Criterion

The Drucker-Prager failure criterion is an extension of the Von Mises criterion and is given
by

Where

Is the first invariant of the stress tensor.

Is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor; and k and α are material constants.

Consider a proportional triaxial stress path

For such a stress path, Eq. 1 can be rewritten as

If Eq. 2 were symmetric, a stress path

Would also yield Eq. 2. Instead such a stress path results in

Comparing Eq. 2 and 3 we observe that different values for the principle stress are calculated
unless β=0

For α = 1 Eq. 2 and 3 both yield

So that there is continuity in the failure envelope. The slope of the failure envelope is also
continuous (smooth failure surface
) but the slope only equals -45° for α=1 when β = 0 .hence the yield contour only intersect the
diagonal

Perpendicularly when β = 0 as indicated in fig. 1 .This nonorthogonality can be proved rather

simply for the Drucker-PragerCriterion as application of the implicit function theorem to Eq.
2 yields for the slope
We observe that only for β = 0, Eq.5 reduces to

Which proves the assertion.

The nonorthonality and nonsymmetry as shown here for the Drucker-Prager Criterion adhere
to any (isotropic) failure criterion when the failure envelope is plotted on plane

With β ≠0. Nevertheless orthogonality and symmetry are frequently assumed (e.g. Aschl, et
al. 1976; van Mier 1984) or even predicted as a result from the plastic fracturing model
(Bazant and Kim 1979)
Furthermore, a comparison of recent triaxial strength data obtained by the fist writer (van
Mier 1984) with a recent failure criterion (Podgorski 1985) is shown fig.2 for stress paths

The agreement between the model and the experimental data is satisfactory. It is furthermore
noted that the envelopes of the Podgorski model which result from intersecting the three-
dimensional failure surface with tilted planes, clearly display nonsymmetry and non
orthogonality when β ≠0

2 William-Warnke Criterion

William and Warnke have in 1975 proposed a model based on a linear relation between ξ and
ρ, but having a smooth, convex, and non-circular failure surface in the deviatoric plane. The
procedure used in that the deviatoric failure surface for 0 ≤ θ ≤ 60° can be considered as
being a part of an elliptical curve, as shown in fig. 2.9.
After some algebra, see Chen [82.3], the radius ρ can be described as

And

The failure surface is then defined by

Where

The three parameters that needs to be determined is

and α. The parameter can be determined by the uniaxial compressive strength fc, the unaxial
tensile strength ft, and the equal biaxial compressive strength,fcc. The result obtained are, see
[Chen 82.3]:

Where,

The failure surface can be illustrated as shown in fig 2.20.

The model is calibrated to the specified concrete by using results from test with low order
compressive and tensile stresses. It then follows that the model will yield good agreement
with linear relation between ξ and ρ the model does not catch the fact that at very high
compressive stresses, the ratio ρt/ρc approaches unity.

CONCLUSION

This report describes different models for the failure surface of concrete under triaxail stress
condition. In the first part simple failure modes of one and two parameter type which are
suitable for manual calculations are presented. Later these models are refined by adding
additional parameters for describing curved meridians and/or noncircular cross sections
which are suitable for computer applications.

REFERENCES

1. 2-D representation of 3-D limit surface by Jan G. M. van Mier and Rene de Borst
2. Preliminary state of the art report on multiaxial strength of concrete by Kaare K. B.
Dahl