Understanding 2D and 3D Stress: Differences and Applications Explained"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kongys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d 3d Stress
AI Thread Summary
2D and 3D stress analysis differ significantly, particularly in calculating maximum principal stress under various loading conditions. 2D stress formulas are often applied in mechanical and structural engineering, where complex problems can be simplified into multiple 2D analyses, such as in the case of a steel cylinder rod under multi-axial loading. In contrast, 3D stress analysis is crucial in fields like geotechnical engineering and fluid mechanics, which involve continuum mechanics. The ability to reduce 3D problems into manageable 2D sections enhances analysis efficiency. Understanding when to apply each method is essential for accurate stress evaluation in engineering applications.
Kongys
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I having a trouble in defining 2D and 3D stress . As I know Maximum principal stress in 2D and 3D cases is totally different. In which condition we should apply 2D stress formula and when we need to use 3D stress formula?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you have a particular application or area of application in mind?
 
Studiot said:
Do you have a particular application or area of application in mind?

If like deflection of a steel cylinder rod with multi axial loading? In this case axial load , torsional load and bending load is applied.
 
Such a system can be reduced to several simultaneous 2D problems, which are easier to handle than a 3D one.

This is because you can take sections along the cylinder.

Much of mechanical and structural engineering stress analysis can be accomplished by either direct 2D analysis or reducing the problem to a series of 2D analyses as above.

The most common place to find the need for 3D analysis is in geotechnical engineering and fluid mechanics.

Both disciplines usually deal with what is known as continuum mechanics.
 
Studiot said:
Such a system can be reduced to several simultaneous 2D problems, which are easier to handle than a 3D one.

This is because you can take sections along the cylinder.

Much of mechanical and structural engineering stress analysis can be accomplished by either direct 2D analysis or reducing the problem to a series of 2D analyses as above.

The most common place to find the need for 3D analysis is in geotechnical engineering and fluid mechanics.

Both disciplines usually deal with what is known as continuum mechanics.

I think I got some idea with that, thanks for your sharing.
 
Thread ''splain this hydrostatic paradox in tiny words'
This is (ostensibly) not a trick shot or video*. The scale was balanced before any blue water was added. 550mL of blue water was added to the left side. only 60mL of water needed to be added to the right side to re-balance the scale. Apparently, the scale will balance when the height of the two columns is equal. The left side of the scale only feels the weight of the column above the lower "tail" of the funnel (i.e. 60mL). So where does the weight of the remaining (550-60=) 490mL go...
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...
Back
Top