Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Welding Fundamentals / Tension vs. Shear
- - By Maggs47 (**) Date 01-16-2018 16:02
I've got some 2" square tubing, 1/4" wall, to be welded in like an "L".  The question is, should I put the weld in tension or shear.  If you're looking at the "L", imagine pulling up on the vertical member.  Would I make that vertical piece reach the ground and weld the base onto the side of it, or make the base come all the way left and weld the vertical to the top?

No spec involved, just designing some internal tooling framework to be fabricated in house.  Probably TIG or MIG weld.  Let me know of any other details i've left out.

I may need to convince someone of this, so if you've got a reference where I could read more about this, I'd appreciate it.
Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 01-16-2018 18:57
I just polled 3 Engineers that I work with....
Boy was that a mistake. I get better straight answers when I talk to my dog.
Their consensus, with out all of the other details needed to find the best answer (material type, weld size/type, welder abilities, how the load is applied, how the lower member is mounted, etc., etc., etc....) is that tension is better than shear, which I agree with.
However, my answer for what would be all around best is a 45 degree miter joint, beveled for CJP welds.

Tim
Parent - By Maggs47 (**) Date 01-16-2018 19:20
I figured this would be a nice can of worms. :wink:

Material will be low carbon steel, most likely https://www.mcmaster.com/#6527K614, unless analysis says it won't hold up under load.

I'm modeling in Autodesk Inventor as a weldment and am planning on running their simple FEA on the finished model.  If loads are close to tolerance, I'll see if changing to 45 degree joints will help.
Parent - - By Tyrone (***) Date 02-12-2018 19:24
Sorry about the late response Maggs, just saw your post.

Shear is always worse than tension.  The relationship between shear and tensile strength in metal is 1/√3 or 0.577.  ref. Shigley's textbook.  It's based on the 45 deg. shear plane theory.

Tyrone
Parent - By Maggs47 (**) Date 02-12-2018 20:57
Thanks for the response.  I went with tension anyway.  Turns out that joint wasn't the weakest link by far anyway and there is a safety factor of about 2.5 or more per the analysis, so I'm confident the design won't fall apart.
Parent - - By Vinny (*) Date 09-03-2018 13:18
Tyrone,

I think I understand what you're getting at but saying "Shear is always worse than tension," is a statement that would get you a lot of arguments from some. It really depends on what your making and what it's for. Example, although carbon fibre has taken over the design considerations, F1 chassis were once mostly metal. The survival cell or cockpit is designed around collapsible geometric cells with predictable failure processes for front, back and side impacts. Stress generally has a more predictable failure process than tension. Drivers have survived recorded impacts greater than 28g's with only bruises because of the ability to design around the failure properties of stress. I survived, along with the permanent effects, falling out of the sky and that was no where near 28g's. I get the willies just thinking about it. On the other hand, roll bars are designed and built in tension. Tension, or compression is best understood with the submarine. How deep do they go? The only way to know is to take it to its failure depth at which point it loses any value as a submarine.

Of course there's a lot more to this for the engineers to ponder. I'm just pointing out that shear or tension isn't always a better or worse consideration of strength.
Parent - - By Tyrone (***) Date 09-04-2018 11:57
Hi Vinny,
I did say that shear is always worse than tension...in metals.

I'm just getting into simulating composites.  The lay-up and direction has a large impact to the property curves.  I don't know the shear/tensile relationship yet. I'll need to know if the 3x factor is the same as on metals.  It sounds like the F1 panels are sacrificial and the cage takes the high G loads.  With submarine, I can guarantee they did calculations on how deep they can go without the hoop stress crushing them like a tin can (then add a huge safety factor).
Would like to hear your falling out of the sky story.  That sounds more interesting.

Tyrone
Parent - - By Vinny (*) Date 09-04-2018 14:37 Edited 09-05-2018 03:59
Tyrone,

I was pretty sure I understood what you were getting at. My comments was aimed more at someone that maybe didn't and would take it as gospel for all situations.

You're right about the impact energy absorbing crush cells or zones built in to the chassis. It's the ability to mitigate the impact energy through design by manipulating shear forces that tensile forces don't as easily offer that make it all possible. From the best I understand, manipulating tensile forces isn't necessarily a non-starter. It can sometimes be accomplished through manipulating movement and time instead of incremental crush but with a size and weight trade off so circumstances will dictate use.

I mostly worked with suspensions and the relationship between the CoM and CoW for traction and control. What little I know about composites is all second hand information. At first it was all about weight. Ounce for ounce or gram for gram, composites are stronger than most metals. There are people that will argue this over what are called exotic metals but they don't really matter because except for very rare circumstances they are outlawed in most racing. Some racing allows them in the open classes but that's mostly because things like jet engines are full of exotic metals.

EDIT: I meant to put this in, CoW is CoG. Because handling characteristics are determined by weight transfer through sprung and un-sprung weight in the suspension and chassis using the word "weight" was more universal in my work and understood wherever you're at. When you enter your career in composites and design you will run in to a lot universal and regional vocabularies that you'll be required to learn. A good example is with the definition of torque. In North America and Great Brittan\Western Europe to the physicist torque is a rotating force in one form or another. To the engineer and mathematician that's a "moment," and torque is defined by as the amount of change between moments. When you start dealing with vibration and harmonics with composites this will make a big difference if your work is for someone in India for example. There, they like and use the physicist's definition. Don't get your name attached to someone's "Hubble Telescope." 95 out of 100 people you will work are deathly afraid of mistakes and will take advantage of any opportunity to scapegoat anyone to avoid owning a mistake. If you use an absolute make darn sure it's an absolute and you can back it up. Just some friendly advice.

Things have changed a lot since composites were first used and there are so many types of materials in use now along with the different processes in use for fabricating with composites I imagine you're in for a fun ride becoming educated about them. An autoclave isn't even necessary with some of the materials now. I can only imagine it's to the point where an engineer has be highly specialized to fully understand the needed equations, factors and charts of plug in numbers to competently design with composites today. There was a time when some referred to those that matched tires and suspension setup to conditions as wizards. It felt good but I think we've taken a backseat to you composite guys for the moniker.

The falling out of the sky. Probably shouldn't have said that and there's not much I can share. In 1981 I was TAD to the UN from NATO as an observer in the Middle East. You'll have to use your imagination about what happened and why, which will probably be a better story anyway, but I was in a helicopter that crashed. Kind of "in it" anyway. I was at the door and somewhere around what I imagined to be between 60 and 40 feet I jumped out. I saw the slope of a hill I could make to get me away from the crash and I went for it. I was later told it was estimated I was closer to 100 feet than 60 to get where I did. I still don't think I was that high. What I do know is I had over 400 jumps, mostly recreational, and I still don't know where I got the balls to do it. I've known a lot of people that wouldn't think twice but that's not me. The next thing I remember was waking up 3 days later in Germany where I spent the next 5 months. That's the story I can tell.

Let me say this though, I have no desire to offend anyone but saying "thank you for your service," has become a verbal flippant reaction that most of us prefer not to hear it. From those that actually think and feel it, it's known without being said and you're welcome.
Parent - By Tyrone (***) Date 09-05-2018 11:53
Wow,
You are one luck fella to survive that jump.  Laid up in for 5 months, that must have been painful.  Good thing that was a temporary gig ;)

I'm only use to isotropic material (metals).  This composite stuff is wildly complex to analyze but, if we want to stay competitive....

Thanks for your insights.
Tyrone
Up Topic Welding Industry / Welding Fundamentals / Tension vs. Shear

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill