never both radial to the surface and normal to the meridional

direction. As a result, the radial stress distribution (parallel to

the plane of stress classification) is actually a combination of
radial and axial stress. Another way to say this is that the axial
stress direction does not match the meridional direction, where
the meridional stress is the stress of concern. As a result, the
correct meridional bending stress is obtained when the radial
stress is linearized. Therefore, true radial stresses have no physical
relation to bending, but what is called the radial stress
may be skewed and not truly radial and thus contain a bending
component.
Shear Component Stress. The shear stress does not act
perpendicular to planes of the incremental element; therefore,
the concept of "shear bending" has no physical meaning. Also,
the normal distribution for a shear stress is parabolic, not
linear; again, shear bending has no meaning. On the other
hand, cases occur where there is a nonparabolic shear stress
distribution. This indicates that the axial stress does not represent
the true meridional stress; i.e., the plane chosen for
stress classification does not represent the critical bending plane.
Therefore, to develop a principal stress that coincides with the
critical vector, the shear must be linearized. The only other
option would be to choose a better plane of stress classification.
Principal Stresses. In lieu of using component stresses to
determine the bending moment, the principal stresses can be
used, because they are component stresses in the coordinates
of zero shear stress. The main argument for using principal
stresses is that the question of "shear bending" is by-passed.
On the other hand, arguments against using principal stresses
are based on the nonuniform direction of principal stresses;
i.e., the direction of the principal stresses can be different at
each point on the classification plane. As yet unknown, is
whether using the principal stresses is the same as using all six
component stresses before calculating the principal stresses.
In evaluating these choices, one must keep in mind that if the
plane is a true bending plane and if it remains plane, both the
component stress approach and the principal stress approach
should give comparable results.
To have a consistent principal stress distribution, the normal
component stress distribution must be basically linear and the
shear stress distribution must be parabolic or very low. The
main problem is to define a true bending plane. At discontinuities,
it is often impossible to obtain a plane for bending
where the stress distributions are appropriate over the entire
plane.
Based on the foregoing discussion, seven options have been
defined for obtaining the membrane plus bending stresses for
use in PL + Pb and P + Q evaluations:
1 use all six component stresses;
2 use the three normal component stresses and use the total
shear stresses at the surface;
3 use the three normal component stresses and use the membrane
shear stresses;
4 use the two normal stresses that act on a plane (nominally
the hoop and meridional), use the total for the third normal
(radial) stress, and use total shear stress at the surface;
5 use the two normal stresses that act on a plane and use the
membrane radial and shear stresses;
6 use the three principal stresses;
7 use the two principal stresses that act on a plane and use
the total for the third (radial) principal stress.
Journal