-hh
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:34:31 PM UTC-5, ed wrote:

ed
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:48:56 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:

-hh
Its far more germane than Statics, since one has to have some sort of dynamic element to induce transient loads. Otherwise, there are no cycles to be concerned with fatigue potential. So if not Dynamics, then what would it be? FYI, something called 'Structural Dynamics' is still Dynamics.

ed
the difference is that a 200 level dynamics class is concerned with the dynamics of the system (what's the velocity of a given forces b and c, find the linear velocity given angular velocity, spring-mass-damper problems, etc). structural dynamics classes will vary widely, but typically goes into the effect of the dynamics on the material and structure (given vibration on structure x what is the displacement, will structural damage be caused by such and such dynamic load, etc). one is a lot more relevant than the other.

-hh
Sure, but all you're doing is drilling down with greater resolution, from systems to subsystems/components.

ed
i'm just going to go ahead and say that pretty much NO 200 level course is going to cover fatigue to any useful extent (i say this as someone who's taken structures courses through the 500 level, and wouldn't claim to know a lot about the topic). :P

-hh
It still is at the very least, a formal introduction to the topic, which is vastly more than what Nasty can claim. You remember, the actual originator of the 'old car = fatigue' claim?

-hh