Death eater
- 22
- 1
Why theories of failure have been developed from 1-D tensile testing. Why can't we go 2-D testing or 3-D testing?
The discussion centers on the development of theories of failure derived from 1-D tensile testing and the limitations of extending these theories to 2-D and 3-D testing. Participants highlight the significance of fatigue in material failure, particularly how geometric shapes can concentrate flexural damage, leading to failure initiation. A notable example mentioned is the recent research on bent spaghetti, which demonstrated that pre-stressing through torsion can influence the fracture behavior of materials. The conversation emphasizes the need for further exploration of multi-dimensional testing methodologies.
PREREQUISITESMaterials scientists, mechanical engineers, and researchers focused on material testing methodologies and failure analysis will benefit from this discussion.
I am just asking why we are using theories of failure to determine 2-D faliure stresses why not practically test it as it is done with 1-DJBA said:Can you give any examples of where these additional types of testing would be beneficial?
I have a just simple question why theories of faliure was developed for 2-D and 3-D failure??Nik_2213 said:There was recent work on why bent spaghetti shatters rather than 'just' snaps.
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-mathematicians-age-old-spaghetti-mystery.html
IIRC, they found that applying torsion to um, pre-stress it made it snap clean when bent...
Per OP's query, I think the answer lies in the study of 'fatigue', where unfortunate shape concentrates flexure damage to initiate failure. Once that begins, a simpler model may approximate...