Roark's Equations for Discontinuity Stresses Syntax

AI Thread Summary
R_A in Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain refers specifically to the radius of common circumference, defined as the intersection of the midsurfaces of two different shells, rather than any shared radius. This value is typically measured vertically from an axis bisecting the shell horizontally. If the left section of the shell is not curved, R_A equals R_1; however, if it is more circular, R_A becomes a function of R_1 multiplied by the sine of the angle. It's important to distinguish R_A from delta R_A, which is not the same as indicated in the referenced table. Understanding these definitions is crucial for accurate calculations of discontinuity stresses.
josep233
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am looking for clarification of some terms found in Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain 9E. Table 13.4 pg 543 as well as preceding tables frequently reference R_A as the radius of common circumference. I take this to mean that this value could include any radius that both cylinders share through their thicknesses, but do not know for sure. To further confuse this, some tables say R_A = R_1. Does anyone with more exposure to this understand what R_A means?
20230524_111329.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
R_A =radius of common circumference, i.e. it is defined as the intersection of the midsurfaces of the two different shells (not just any shared radius). It is generally defined as a vertical distance from an axis bisecting the shell horizontally. So if the left-most section isn't curved, then R_a should equal R_1.
1686676572241.png


If the left section is e.g. more circular, then the R_a is a function of R_1*sin() -> since R_a is measured vertically in the fashion the diagrams are usually portrayed, not radially.
1686676452828.png

It's maybe worth saying that R_A is not delta R_A, which is all I see in the table you shared.
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
25K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top