- #1
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?
Theories of failure and tensile testing
- Thread starter Death eater
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the development of theories of failure based on 1-D tensile testing and the potential for expanding these theories to 2-D and 3-D testing. Participants explore the implications, benefits, and limitations of different testing methodologies in understanding material failure, particularly in the context of fatigue and shape-related stress concentrations.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- Some participants question why theories of failure are primarily based on 1-D tensile testing and not expanded to include 2-D or 3-D testing.
- Others inquire about specific examples where 2-D or 3-D testing might provide advantages over traditional methods.
- A participant references recent research on the behavior of bent spaghetti, suggesting that the study of fatigue and shape-related stress concentrations could inform the understanding of failure in more complex testing scenarios.
- There is a repeated inquiry into the rationale behind developing theories of failure for 2-D and 3-D scenarios, indicating a desire for clarification on the topic.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express varying viewpoints on the necessity and practicality of expanding failure theories beyond 1-D testing. There is no consensus on the benefits or feasibility of 2-D and 3-D testing methodologies, and the discussion remains unresolved.
Contextual Notes
Limitations in the discussion include a lack of specific examples of 2-D and 3-D testing applications, as well as unresolved questions regarding the assumptions underlying current theories of failure.
Similar threads
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 14 ·
- · Replies 18 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 1 ·