I Size Effect on Structural Strength

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the Size Effect as outlined in a Wikipedia article, highlighting two main types: Statistical and Energetic size effects. The Statistical size effect indicates that larger objects tend to have weaker points, reducing overall strength due to material variation. The first type of Energetic size effect relates to bending beams with microcracks, suggesting that greater maximum stress is required to maintain internal moments due to weaker regions. The second type addresses existing significant cracks, asserting that larger cracks fail at lower stress levels, akin to Griffith's Criterion, and raises questions about its applicability to uniaxial tension. The content references Bazant's law, which extends Irwin's equation for ductile materials, while Griffith's equation is specifically for brittle materials.
person123
Messages
326
Reaction score
52
TL;DR Summary
I want to check if my intuition behind the size effect is generally correct, even if I don't fully understand the derivation.
I'm using the wikipedia page on Size Effect to get an understanding of it. It identifies Statistical and Energetic size effects and two types within energetic.

I believe I understand statistical, as it seems to essentially say that assuming there's some variation in the material strength, the larger the object, the weaker the weakest points, decreasing the overall strength.

I'm a bit less sure on the first type for energetic size effect. It takes a beam undergoing bending, with a weaker region on the side undergoing tension due to microcracks. I think it argues that because that region can take on less stress, in order to provide the same internal moment, there must be a greater max stress. However, the derivation doesn't seem to make sense to me (I could go into more detail on that), and I was also wondering if it only applies for the specific situation of a bending beam with microcracks at the tensile region.

The second type seems to apply when a significant crack has already formed. I think it's arguing that as the beam is scaled up, the cracks scales as well. By understanding the relation between the change in surface energy and elastic energy you can show that a larger crack will fail at a lower stress. This seems essentially equivalent to the derivation of Griffith's Criterion. Are there significant differences, and would this also apply to a beam just undergoing uniaxial tension for example?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
person123 said:
I'm a bit less sure on the first type for energetic size effect. It takes a beam undergoing bending, with a weaker region on the side undergoing tension due to microcracks. I think it argues that because that region can take on less stress, in order to provide the same internal moment, there must be a greater max stress. However, the derivation doesn't seem to make sense to me (I could go into more detail on that), and I was also wondering if it only applies for the specific situation of a bending beam with microcracks at the tensile region.
Same consideration (of finite thickness of damage zone) is applicable for compression too. For example, cracks initiate in ring-shaped zone around entry point of rod forced into concrete, not only on rod surface.
person123 said:
The second type seems to apply when a significant crack has already formed. I think it's arguing that as the beam is scaled up, the cracks scales as well. By understanding the relation between the change in surface energy and elastic energy you can show that a larger crack will fail at a lower stress. This seems essentially equivalent to the derivation of Griffith's Criterion. Are there significant differences, and would this also apply to a beam just undergoing uniaxial tension for example?
That chapter of wikipedia article "size effect" is based on Bazant's law, which is extension of Irwin`'s equation for ductile materials which is derived from Griffith`s equation. The Griffith's equation itself is applicable only for brittle materials.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top