# Discussion Questions 2.

From Table 2, the percentage change in torsional stiffness from hollow shafts to solid shafts is mostly negative and becomes more negative when the inner diameter of the hollow shaft increases. This implies that the solid shafts have a higher torsional stiffness (i.e. are more rigid and strong) than hollow shafts of the same outer diameter. It is also seen that the maximum shear stress experienced by hollow shafts of constant outer diameter but increasing inner diameter increases in comparison to the maximum shear stress of the solid shaft, which implies that the bigger the hole of the hollow shaft, the more prone it is to failure. For shafts of the same volume (Table 3) the percentage change in torsional stiffness from hollow shafts to solid shafts is always positive, but of different outer diameter; the percentage change in torsional stiffness becomes more positive as Dh/Ds increases. This implies that the volume of the shaft material does not have a sizeable impact on the % change in torsional stiffness. As the outer diameter increases, the theoretical maximum shear stress becomes less negative, which suggests that the increase in outer diameter, regardless of whether the shaft is hollow or not, enables the shaft to withstand more stress before failure.

3. There appears to be slight discrepancy between the experimental and theoretical results of Graph 3, with an anomalous point on the ΔK (Experimental) line. This may be due to a number of problems, such as an experimental/ human error or a specimen error, which would result in deviations in particular results. Nevertheless, the line of best fit for the ΔK (Experimental) line has a negative slope, which is consistent with the theoretical result. Based on the calculated and experimental values of torsional stiffness, a hollow shaft would be less rigid and less strong than a solid shaft of the same diameter (Dh=Ds). 4. Again, there is a deviation of the line of best fit of the experimental results from the theoretical curve, which may also be due to the errors mentioned above, but both experimental and theoretical curves appear to be downward sloping polynomial curves. From Table 1 and Table 3, notwithstanding the anomalous sets of data (which may be due to specimen defects) shafts of a larger diameter, whether solid or hollow, have higher K values and can withstand more stress before failure, and the volume of the shaft has a weaker effect on torsional stiffness than the diameter of the shaft. Also, for constant outer diameter shafts, as the inner diameter of the shafts increases, the maximum stress that can be withstood decreases. Solid shafts of the same diameter tend to have higher torsional stiffness than their hollow counterparts. However, they require more shaft material to manufacture and could prove costly, especially if the diameter is increased. If a hollow shaft were used, the cost of shaft material might be lower. However, there will be a decrease in shaft strength and additional costs and time that will be incurred by the process of drilling holes into solid shafts. Thus, a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be used in evaluating strength-cost trade-offs to determine the suitability of each shaft.

the volume of the shaft material has a weaker impact than the diameter of the shaft on the torsional stiffness of the shaft. When comparing the strength and rigidity of solid and hollow shafts of the same volume. . the hollow shafts proved stiffer than the solid shafts. the solid shafts proved stiffer and stronger than the hollow shafts. However.Conclusion When comparing the strength and rigidity of solid and hollow shafts of the same outer diameter.