This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Muddy Card Responses Lecture M24 12/8 *You mentioned that E 1111 ≠ Young's modulus. Why is that?. This is correct E 1111 ≠ Young's modulus. If you consider the strain that arises due to a uniaxial stress applied (say  ns 11 in the x 1 direction  so s 11 ) , there should be a strain of e 11 = s 11 and e 22 = e 33 = in the E E transverse directions. But the tensor stiffness form of the stressstrain relationship for an isotropic material gives: s 11 s 11 s 11 = E 1111 e 11 + E 1122 e 22 + E 1133 e 33 = E 1111 s 11 n E 1122 E n E 1133 E E i.e. the axial stress picks up contributions from the offaxis stress. Another way to look at this is to consider what would happen if e 22 = e 33 = , which would imply that s 22 = s 33 = ≠ . This is an important point, so it is worth convincing yourself of the reasoning. *The different forms of notation are confusing. Why are they useful? I agree that it is a bit confusing, and in some ways it would make life easier if there was a consistent set of notation. The reason for the two types of notation is that tensor notation is mathematically more straightforward. However, the engineering notation and the engineering elastic more straightforward....
View
Full
Document
 Winter '12
 CharlesColeman
 Aeronautics, Astronautics

Click to edit the document details