Theories of failure and tensile testing

  • #1

Main Question or Discussion Point

Why theories of failure have been developed from 1-D tensile testing. Why can't we go 2-D testing or 3-D testing?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
JBA
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,540
459
Can you give any examples of where these additional types of testing would be beneficial?
 
  • #3
808
281
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...
 
  • #4
Can you give any examples of where these additional types of testing would be beneficial?
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-D
 
  • #5
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...
I have a just simple question why theories of faliure was developed for 2-D and 3-D failure??
 

Related Threads on Theories of failure and tensile testing

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
552
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
368
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Top