Mechanics 2 - Statics of rigid bodies. Please help.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a mechanics problem involving the statics of a uniform ladder in limiting equilibrium. The problem presents a scenario where the ladder rests against a wall and on the ground, with various forces acting on it, including friction and normal forces. Participants are tasked with deriving a relationship involving the angle of the ladder and coefficients of friction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conditions for equilibrium, noting the need for the sum of forces and torques to be zero. They explore the unknowns involved, including normal forces and the angle of the ladder. Some participants express confusion regarding the direction of friction at the wall and how it affects the moments calculated. Others attempt to set up equations based on their understanding of the forces acting on the ladder.

Discussion Status

Several participants have made progress in setting up equations and resolving forces, while others are questioning their assumptions about the direction of friction. There is acknowledgment of potential traps in the problem, particularly regarding the unknowns and how they relate to the equilibrium conditions. Some participants have reached similar conclusions regarding the relationship they are trying to prove, but there is no explicit consensus on the approach taken.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem lacks specific numerical values, which adds to the complexity of the discussion. There is also mention of the need to consider the length of the ladder, which is not specified but may be treated as a variable that cancels out in the equations. The discussion is framed within the context of preparing for future coursework rather than immediate homework.

KnowledgeIsPower
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
I'm having difficulty with the question, perhaps mainly because it is consists completely of unknowns, with little or no numbers. Help, in the form of steps to reach the proof would be much appreciated:

'A uniform ladder of mass M rests in limiting equilibrium with one end on a rough horizontal ground and the other end against a rough vertical wall. The coefficient of friction between the ladder and the ground is U. The coefficient of friction between the ladder and the wall is U'. Given that the ladder makes an angle a with the horizontal show that:
tan a = (1- UU')/2U
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that in order to have an equilibrium situation you need:
The sum of forces acting upon the object must be zero.
The torque of forces computed about a point must be zero.
Since you have a 2-D problem, you have a total of 3 equations.

What are your unknowns?
The 2 magnitudes of the normal forces, and the angle a.

Try and set up your equations with this information!
 
After checking the notice topic i thought i'd make it clear this isn't homework, I'm just starting next years work early, as i have recently finished my AS exams.

Here's where I've got so far:

Resolving horizontally: UR = S
Vertically: R +U'S = Mg

Taking moments about mg:
Clockwise = anticlockwise.
Rxcos(theta) = XSin(theta) + XU'Scos(theta) + RxUsin(theta)
Divide by x:
Rcos(theta) = Sin(theta) + U'SCos(theta) + RUSin(theta)
Divide by cos(theta)
R=Tan(theta) + U'S + URTan(theta)
Tan(theta) + URTan(theta) = R - U'S
Tan(theta) + URTan(theta) = R - U'UR

Here I'm stuck. I would really appreciate any help.
 
arildno said:
Note that in order to have an equilibrium situation you need:
The sum of forces acting upon the object must be zero.
The torque of forces computed about a point must be zero.
Since you have a 2-D problem, you have a total of 3 equations.

What are your unknowns?
The 2 magnitudes of the normal forces, and the angle a.

Try and set up your equations with this information!
Yes, i set that up. However, it seems i have more unknowns which include:
Length of rod (2X), but this may later be canceled out.
R (upward reaction on the floor)
UR (Friction on floor)
Mass
S(reaction at wall)
U'S (friction at wall)
 
The mass is given as M, so that is "known". U and U' are also givens.
True, the length has not been specified, but that cancels out (Just give it a default value L, or something (2X?))

Hence, in you notation, you have a,R,S as unknowns.
I'll check up on post 3, and post some comments.
 
There's a nasty trap in this problem:
You do not know at the outset which way (up or down) the friction along the vertical wall goes!

Hence, when computing moments about a point, you should use the contact point on the vertical wall!
I have to think about this..
 
arildno said:
There's a nasty trap in this problem:
You do not know at the outset which way (up or down) the friction along the vertical wall goes!

Hence, when computing moments about a point, you should use the contact point on the vertical wall!
I have to think about this..

Hmm, i assumed naturally that the ladder would want to slip down, so friction would act up, though this isn't given in the question.
 
Cripes, just got it after trying for the fourth time or something. Here's the solution if anyone is interested:

Let 2x = length (as it is a uniform rod the distance from the top or bottom to mg = x)
R = Reaction at base.
UR = Friction at base.
mg = weight action.
S = Reaction at wall.
U'S = Friction at wall.

Resolving:
Horizontally: UR = S
Vertically: R + U'S = mg

Taking moments at A (bottom)
Clockwise = anticlockwise.
xcos(theta)mg = 2xsin(theta)S + 2U'Sxcos(theta)
Cos(theta)Mg = 2sin(theta)S + 2U'Scos(theta)

Perform some substitution:
Rcos(theta) + U'Scos(theta) = 2Ssin(theta) + 2U'Scos(theta)
Rcos(theta)+U'URcos(theta) = 2URsin(theta) + 2U'Scos(theta)
R+U'UR = 2URtan(theta) + 2U'S
R+U'UR = 2URtan(theta) + 2U'UR
1+U'U = 2Utan(theta)+2U'U
2Utan(theta) = 1+U'U - 2U'U
2Utan(theta) = 1-UU'
Tan(theta) = (1-UU')/(2U)

Sweet, pleased with myself now >_<
 
Last edited:
That's what I got as well, and while I agree with argument about the direction, you also get a solution with your minus swapped to a plus..
Smart of you to use a contact point in calculating torques.
 
  • #10
arildno said:
That's what I got as well, and while I agree with argument about the direction, you also get a solution with your minus swapped to a plus..
Smart of you to use a contact point in calculating torques.

To be honest i haven't done any work on torques yet. I just resolved at A because i saw i would be able to cancel two forces, and the unknown 'mg' could be translated into a more useful form via one of the other equations.
Interesting question, getting it right always gives a good sense of accomplishment.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K