Within all assumption made on these theories, ... did you think upon your academic and general point of view.. that it will match all cases, .. without no more assumptions...?
As I see, the skyscrapers, bridges, towers, ....etc stand, so I certainly trust the theories of structural analysis.
Must of theories of structural analysis are based on analytical approaches to represent the behavior of the materials,assumptions,and checking for range of the validity of such methods.some of there methods depend on linear behavior,some based on nonlinear behavior,others are developed to represent more complex material behavior.thus, the degree of confidence on analytical methods is good.
It will not match all the cases because it depends to assumptions as you mensioned.
It depends on what you are looking for. In my opinion, you are partially right on mentioning the fact that more assumptions are possible, but for sure on the other side, we can state that SA is a valid support for scientists. It helps you to share knowledge and to adopt a standard procedure to observe and comment facts.
I have the different opinion. The theories may be trusted based on experimental verification, validity of assumptions in the theory, relevance of the final results etc.
I support the answer by Dr. Antonino.
Structural analysis is valuable in every aspect but lacking in dentistry
For complex restorations , for fixed prosthesis and splinting
Yes,we do not have choice, at the most we can compare results using different theories
These structure theories are 90% researching result and 10 % approximate
Theories based on linear elastic analysis are highly conservative, especially in case of analysis of indeterminate structures. The plastic limit is always reached at load levels higher than those obtained from those theories. For theories based on numerical analysis, there could be inconsistency between results obtained from various numerical models.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Civil Engineering
- Construction