Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: STRESS AND FORCE

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

From: SGE Structural [mailto:sgordin(--nospam--at)sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:31 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: STRESS AND FORCE

Struggling through the 2007 AASHTO BDS, I fail to understand one very basic thing.  There was a good thing invented once, called stress, why the new codes use forces instead? 
 
 
The use of forces - as those of resistance or loading - is so less informative, and does not give the same feel for the performance of material/component. 
 
 
 
===============
Stresses are actually not a good indicator of failure. Factor of safety based on stresses are over-simplification. Question arises which stress you want to use a indicator? Principal stresses, Von Mises stress, or stresses based on several other hypothesis? Or, should we carry the whole state of stress in a form of stress vector and compare with the unknown "allowable stresses"?
 
-Suresh Acharya, S.E.
===============
 
 
 
 
Of course, all new equations allow conversion into stress, but why the change? 
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA