Answer:
a. ε₁=-0.000317
ε₂=0.000017
θ₁= -13.28° and θ₂=76.72°
b. maximum in-plane shear strain =3.335 *10^-4
Associated average normal strain ε(avg) =150 *10^-6
θ = 31.71 or -58.29
Explanation:
ε₁=-0.000317
ε₂=0.000017
To determine the orientation of ε₁ and ε₂
θ= -13.28° and 76.72°
To determine the direction of ε₁ and ε₂
=-0.000284 -0.0000335 = -0.000317 =ε₁
Therefore θ₁= -13.28° and θ₂=76.72°
b. maximum in-plane shear strain
=3.335 *10^-4
ε(avg) =150 *10^-6
orientation of γmax
θ = 31.71 or -58.29
To determine the direction of γmax
= 1.67 *10^-4
Answer:
Tension can be easily explained in the case of bodies hung from chain, cable, string
Explanation
uniform speed, tension; T = W.
T=m(g±a)
Answer:
hello your question is incomplete attached below is the complete question
A) overall mean = 5.535, standard deviation ≈ 0.3239
B ) upper limit = 5.85, lower limit = 5.0
C) Not all the samples meet the contract specifications
D) fluctuation ( unstable Asphalt content )
Explanation:
B) The daily average asphalt content has to obtained in order to determine the upper and lower control limits using an average asphalt content of 5.5% +/- 0.5% everyday
The upper limit : 14 may = ( 5.8 + 5.1 ) / 2 = 5.85
The lower limit : 16 may = ( 5.2 + 4.8 ) / 2 = 5.0
attached below is the required plot
C ) Not all the samples meet the contract specifications and the samples that do not meet up are samples from :
15 may and 16 may . this is because their Asphalt contents are 6.2 and 4.8 respectively and sample number 18 and 20
D ) what can be observed is that the ASPHALT content fluctuates between the dates while the contract specification is fixed
Answer:
a) The key issues are the sue for libel and the evidence.
b) I would make a deal with her and implement a security program in the company.
Explanation:
The main issue in this case is that Pam Jones sued the company for libel, and the company remains in a position in which it has to prove that the internal investigation followed the right steps and indeed, the proves reflected that she was guilty and the fact that she got fired was correct.
The important here is exactly that the theft can be proved.
As an HR Director, I would give the correct proves in order to win the case, and if that is impossible, because of the tools and evidence, I would make a deal with her where both parts can be adequate to the problem.
She can´t be working again in the company but she can get financed according to her working years; also I would use this case as a growing opportunity by implementing new security methods that give more confidence between the company and its employees.
