Photoelasticity and Stress Calculation for a Sample with a Hole

  • Thread starter Thread starter MMCS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating nominal stress at the edge of a hole in a rectangular sample using the formula stress 1 - stress 2 = (f*n)/t. The variables include fringe stress coefficient (f) and fringe order (n), both derived from previous circular samples. A key point of contention is whether this formula adequately accounts for the reduction in area at the hole, with clarification provided that the variable "t" represents the effective cross-sectional area, thus influencing stress concentration around the hole.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of photoelasticity principles
  • Familiarity with stress calculation methods
  • Knowledge of fringe stress coefficients
  • Basic concepts of cross-sectional area in materials science
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation and application of fringe stress coefficients in photoelasticity
  • Study stress concentration factors around holes in materials
  • Explore advanced photoelasticity techniques for stress analysis
  • Learn about the relationship between cross-sectional area and stress distribution in structural materials
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, materials scientists, and researchers involved in stress analysis and photoelasticity applications will benefit from this discussion.

MMCS
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
I am trying to calculate the nominal stress (theoretically) at the edge of the hole (east/west side) in a rectangular shaped sample with a hole in the centre. I have been told to use to equation

stress 1 - stress 2 = (f*n)/t
F = being the fringe stress coefficient (calculated from a previous circular sample)
n = fringe order (calculated from a previous circular sample)

My question is that, This formula does not take into account the reduction in area (like the F/A formula does) at the point of the hole so how can this be the correct formula to use?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MMCS said:
This formula does not take into account the reduction in area (like the F/A formula does) at the point of the hole so how can this be the correct formula to use?

I believe it does take into account the area.

Your variable "t" is should be smaller for the cross-section where the hole is located, compared to other cross sections in your specimen. Therefore, even if the number of fringes, "n," stays the same, the stress is larger around the hole, as you'd expect.

In other words, your cross-sectional area is represented by "t," since I assume your out-of-plane thickness of your specimen is constant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
13K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
17K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
17
Views
7K