What Does Normal to the Reference Surface Mean in Love's Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter perfectz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Doubt
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "normal to the reference surface of the beam remain normal to it and undergo no change in length during deformation" as it relates to Love's hypothesis in elasticity theory. Participants seek clarification on the implications of this statement within the context of beam deformation and elasticity assumptions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the meaning of the statement regarding normals to the reference surface and their behavior during deformation.
  • One participant suggests that the statement is an assumption rather than a hypothesis, which is used to simplify elasticity problems.
  • Another participant proposes that the statement implies that deformation is not significant enough to affect the normal vectors.
  • A different viewpoint indicates that the assumption neglects transverse shear in the beam.
  • One participant attempts to clarify that the assumption involves applying a force that remains normal to the beam's axis and that the beam does not change in length during bending.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of the statement, indicating that multiple competing views remain regarding its implications and the assumptions involved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note potential confusion due to language clarity and the complexity of the concepts involved, highlighting the need for further clarification on the assumptions and their implications in elasticity theory.

perfectz
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Doubt in Love's hypothesis... Please help...

"Normal to the reference surface of the beam remain normal to it and undergo no change in length during deformation"
What does this mean? please help...
 
Engineering news on Phys.org


perfectz said:
"Normal to the reference surface of the beam remain normal to it and undergo no change in length during deformation"
What does this mean? please help...

That's not a sentence as you've written it, so I did some searching. Do you mean "Normals [i.e., normal vectors] to the reference surface of the beam remain normal to it and undergo no change in length during deformation"? It's not a hypothesis, it's an assumption used to simplify elasticity problems. And assumptions, like models, are often strictly wrong but useful.
 


Ya you Love's assumption. I am extremely sorry pal. I understood first 3 this one I can't... Plz help
 


Does it mean that deformation is not significant enough to affect the normal?
 


Not sure I understand (your English is a little muddled!), but how's this:

If you apply a force in order to bend a beam, an assumption is made when you perform your calculations. You assume that the force you apply remains normal to the beam's axis (perpendicular to the length of the beam), and that the beam doesn't change in length under deformation (when it's bent).
 


It means that transverse shear in the beam is neglected.
 

Similar threads

How to design surface roughness model using CST?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Hypothesis: What Does it Really Mean?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
High School Questions about momentum and force as well as normal force/friction
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
What are the forces on a cell in a tree vs on the surface of a tree
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad What Are Examples of Alternate Orderings in Mathematics?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Three doubts in a paragraph on the equilibrium of Incompressible fluids
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
High School Normal force in case of inclined plane and banked turn
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Can Bayesian Hypothesis Testing Determine the Authenticity of Cables?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Lens Maker's Formula - Confusion in the derivation
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Undergrad Trying to Understand the 1928 article by Raman on Nature
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K