Proving equations for a plane stress condition

AI Thread Summary
In a plane stress condition where the stress along the z-axis is zero, the relationships for stress in the x and y axes are derived from experimental strains. The equations σ_x=(∈_x+v∈_y/1-v^2)E and σ_y=(∈_y+v∈_x/1-v^2)E are established using principles of elasticity. The discussion highlights the applicability of Hooke's Law for multi-axial loading, emphasizing that generalized Hooke's Law can be useful in this context. Participants express uncertainty about which equations to use, particularly regarding the rearrangement of Poisson's ratio. Overall, the thread focuses on clarifying the application of these fundamental equations in plane stress analysis.
a_hargy
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For a plane stress condition (stress z-axis = 0 ), prove the following relations if strain x-axis and strain y-axis are determined by experiments.

σ_x=(∈_x+v∈_y/1-v^2)E

&

σ_y=(∈_y+v∈_x/1-v^2)E

where:
σ_x = stress in x-axis
σ_y = stress in y-axis
∈_x = strain in x-axis
∈_x = strain in y-axis
E = modulus of elasticity


Homework Equations


∈_z=-(∈_x+∈_y)(v/1-v)

Poission's ratio
∈_x=σ_x/E

∈_y=∈_z=-vσ_x/E

v=-lateral strain/axial strain

v=-∈_y/∈_x=-∈_z/∈_x


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm not sure which equations I should be using to solve the problem. Can I use Hooke's Law for multi-axial loading since it is a plane stress condition?

I have tried rearranging Poisson's ratio equation with no luck.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hooke's Law only applies to uniaxial loading of a rod. You might find generalized Hooke's Law useful:

\epsilon_x=\frac{\sigma_x}{E}-\frac{\nu\sigma_y}{E}-\frac{\nu\sigma_z}{E}

It applies in 3-D and in any isotropic material. More http://john.maloney.org/Papers/Generalized%20Hooke%27s%20Law%20%283-12-07%29.pdf" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top