Area of an inclined surface with respect to the original surface

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the area of an inclined surface of a bar under tension, particularly focusing on how this area is derived for different cross-sectional shapes, including rectangular and elliptical forms. Participants explore the implications of inclination on the area calculation and its relation to stress analysis in materials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about deriving the area of an inclined elliptical surface compared to a rectangular one, questioning the validity of using the same formula for both.
  • Another participant notes that cutting a cylinder results in an elliptical cross-section and provides the formula for the area of an ellipse, suggesting a straightforward approach for this shape.
  • A different participant proposes that the formula for the area of an inclined section, ##A _\theta=\frac {A_0} {cos \theta}##, might apply to any cross-section that does not cross itself, raising the question of whether this can be proven for complex shapes.
  • One participant asserts that as long as the bar's cross-section remains consistent along its axis, the area formula holds true, indicating a stretching effect in one direction due to inclination.
  • Another participant acknowledges the scaling factor perspective, indicating that it clarifies their understanding of the area calculation.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of "flux" as potentially relevant to the discussion, linking to external resources for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the applicability of the area formula for all cross-sectional shapes, as some express uncertainty about its validity for more complex forms. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the proof of the formula's applicability.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various cross-sectional shapes and the implications of inclination on area calculations, but there are limitations in the assumptions made about the shapes and their properties. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps needed to prove the proposed area formula for all shapes.

tent
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Relationship of inclined area with respect to original area
Hi, I have a problem with inclined planes. The idea is to calculate the stress in an inclined plane of a bar under tension for which you need the surface. I have no idea how this surface is derived, though. In the attached file, you can see what I mean. For a rectangular cross-section, it's straightforward, just applying the rectangle area with the new inclined length. Now, everywhere I see, everyone uses the same rectangular bar as an example.

However, in one single textbook, the exercise uses an elliptical cross-section to seemingly represent a random surface. They use the same formula for the area, but without any explanation, apparently trivially and immediately deriving, but I don't see why the area of an inclined elliptical surface with respect to the original surface is the same as the rectangular one.

My suspicion is that it has to do with the vector area which, being the same direction as the normal, is somehow projected onto the other's area vector, but I don't see it. Thanks for the help. area.PNG
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you cut a cylinder you get an ellipse, which is just a stretched circle, so the area of an ellipse is simply pi*(semi-minor axis)*(semi-major axis). The first is the radius of the cylinder, and the second one you can find in the same way as the rectangular case.
 
Okay, I see that now. It seems to me that for all common cross-sections this is true, at least the ones I can think of, even compound ones such as an H-beam.

But what about any cross-section? By any I mean, an area enclosed by a loop that doesn't cross itself such as a horseshoe, a star/asterisk, sickle, quarter-moon, etc. Could it be proven whether or not ##A _\theta=\frac {A_0} {cos \theta}## is valid for the area of a section resulting from an inclined plane cutting through a bar with cross-section as described previously, where ##\theta## is the angle of inclination?
 
As long as the bar stays the same along its axis that formula stays true - all you do is stretch the area in one direction.
 
Alright, looking at it as a scaling factor in one direction does help. This clears it up, thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K