Answer: Rupture strength
Explanation: Rupture strength is the strength of a material that is bearable till the point before the breakage by the tensile strength applied on it. This term is mentioned when there is a sort of deformation in the material due to tension.So, rupture will occur before whenever there are chances of failing and the material is still able to bear stresses before failing.
So I’m thinking C because they both have a lot to do with design here is my evidence. Structural engineering is a component of civil engineering which focuses on the design and development of infrastructures such as bridges, skyscrapers, dams. Civil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment. I may be wrong but hope this helped!
Answer: True
Explanation:
Engineering stress is the applied load divided by the original cross-sectional area of a material. It is also known as nominal stress. It can also be defined as the force per unit area of a material. Engineering Stress is usually in large numbers.
While Engineering strain is the amount that a material deforms per unit length in a tensile test. It can also be defined as extension per unit length. It has no unit as it is a ratio of lengths. Engineering Strain is in small numbers.
so people dont die whaddya think?
If ceramic vessels are typed together based as they were all used as storage containers, in spite of the fact that design elements indicate they are from different time periods, then they have to be functional typeoperational typesystematic type is given below
Explanation:
The Batiscan site, excavated in the 1960s, produced one of the largest Vinette I collections known to date. Revisiting this ceramic assemblage has revealed more heterogeneity than is generally recognized within the Vinette I type of pottery. Indeed, variations from the typological definition exist, both within and between Early Woodland ceramic collections. A number of diagnostic traits, such as the presence of exterior and interior cord impressions and the absence of decoration, are challenged by the present study. It is hypothesized that part of this variability is chronological, and that the vessels from Batiscan were manufactured closer to the end of the Early Woodland period. However, other factors, such as the frequency and scale of production, and the possible exchange and circulation of ceramic containers, must also be taken into account when interpreting Vinette I variability.l