# Help with Statics and Strengths of Materials

by grandnat_6
Tags: materials, statics, strengths
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: I wanted only point G and the pin locations accurate to six significant digits, before the structure is rotated. Five significant digits is adequate for most of the other values. There is generally no need to use six significant digits for most of the other values. Since I forgot to ask before, could you give me dimensions xA, xB, yB, xC, yC, xD, yD, xF, and yF accurate to six significant digits, before the structure is rotated, before I reply to the other questions? (By the way, normally you would not use six significant digits. This exception is just so I find out the true, initial location of the pins and structure, instead of wasting time on irrelevant round-off error.) All moments in analysis10.png are taken about the centerline of the members. Yes, in analysis10.png, the first moment equation is adjacent to point D (or an infinitesimal distance to the left of D). The second moment equation is an infinitesimal distance (0.000001) to the right of D. Neither equation includes FDy, because FDy causes no moment about the summation point.
P: 63
nvn,

I'm assuming you wanted the dimensions from pin E? Attached are those dimensions.

Thanks.

I've also looked over your moment diagram and calulations for beam 1 for a fifth time. I went ahead and attempted to calculate beam2. I think I have it, just that the slight differences in our dimensions might have to do with it.

I am also assuming in your moment calcuations the + sign means you are adding the moments produced in the Y direction?

On your moment calcuation of M57.855; why the reason for subtracting 19.258"-3.1980" for the moment? Also, why is the force of FEx being calcuated as a moment? How I understand it, we are checking for beam one, every dimension and force is being calcuated from the centerline of the beam. Since FEx is acting on the center line, how it is producing a force on beam 1. I must be missing something....?

Thanks.
Attached Files
 rotation dimensions.pdf (13.5 KB, 3 views) BEAM2SHEAR_MOMENTFORCES.pdf (39.5 KB, 3 views)
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: Are you sure you gave me accurate values for xG and yG? Could you double-check the accuracy of those two values? Point G defines the location and slope of both beams, and I'm wondering if it might be throwing a few of my numbers off. Also, what is the x dimension from E to the bucket tip (where the applied loads are applied)? Regarding your questions in post 38, the plus (+) sign means, it is a moment summation at an infinitesimal distance to the right of the specified x coordinate. Regarding your second question, moments are computed from the centerline of beam 1, until we get to beam 2. Then moments are computed from the centerline of beam 2. The vertical distance from point B to FEx is 19.258. The vertical distance from point B to FDx is (19.258 - 3.1980).
P: 63
I see CAD did not set the x direction of pin B on the center mark of pin B. This might be the error. I've added some extra angles for reference.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks.
Attached Files
 added dimensions.pdf (17.8 KB, 2 views)
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: I think the dimensions in post 40 give an angle of 142.25971 deg between centerlines GE and GB, not 142.39913 deg. I called the load application point at the bucket tip point H. Post 40 changes the vertical distance between points A and B to 7.437320, and changes the vertical distance between points H and B to 4.010720, which supposedly changes an earlier bucket diagram. Is that what you want? And also, e.g., the 20.04246 dimension in beam2shear_momentforces.pdf currently does not correspond to post 40. In post 40, the centerline length of beam 1 (EG) is 32.973505, and the centerline length of beam 2 (GB) is 31.463566.
P: 63
nvn,

This project is becoming a real bear for us. I went back to the start and found the bottom of my bucket was not quite horizontal.

I have re-drawn the bucket and have dimensioned all the x,y pin locations including the G point from pin E. Then I rotated the arm and have dimensioned all the x,y coordinates from pin E. If your calculations agree with mine, then we will be on the same page. I'll start over with the calculations and use six significant digits. I know you mentioned to only use six for the rotation, but I want to make sure it is accurate as possible for the forces and dimensions as well.

Regards,

Rob
Attached Files
 armbucket dimensions.pdf (16.5 KB, 5 views) rotated arm.pdf (8.3 KB, 2 views)
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: No problem. Good catch. All of my dimensions match post 42 to four decimal places, and most of my dimensions match to five decimal places. Five significant digits for hand calculations is adequate (and excellent). You usually never need six significant digits for hand calculations. Usually, you use at least four significant digits for hand calculations, or you can use five significant digits when you want to be more precise. You can use six significant digits occasionally, as long as you know it is unnecessary, and is often not done.
P: 63
nvn,

Attached are my new bucket and arm calculations. I did use six significant figures. I noticed on the bucket after I was done finding all forces, there is an error of .003 in the Y direction. After finding all the forces on the arm. The numbers match perfectly.

I'll work on the rotated arm and shear/moment diagram tomorrow.

Thanks.
Attached Files
 BUCKETFORCES.pdf (36.1 KB, 5 views) ARMFORCES.pdf (31.5 KB, 3 views)
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: After you obtain answers, you can check your work, yourself, by summing forces and moments, to ensure they balance to approximately zero. Your bucketforces.pdf file in post 44 looks correct. In your armforces.pdf file, 70 037.8 is wrong. If you try a moment summation check using your answers in armforces.pdf, you will see the moments do not balance to zero. The 70 037.8 is wrong. Try again.
P: 63
nvn,

I did check the forces in the x and y to make sure they were balanced. I even checked those calculations 3 times! err... Figures, I went back to check and get a different answer right off the bat. Maybe I'm working to hard...

Anyway. I have attached the fix, I also attached my vectorforces for rotated beams and the shear moment diagram. The moment diagram is about 7lbs short. I hope it is not wrong.

Let me know.

Thanks.
Attached Files
 ARMFORCES.pdf (31.0 KB, 4 views) ARMVECTORFORCES.pdf (47.0 KB, 3 views) SHEAR_MOMENTFORCES.pdf (40.9 KB, 5 views)
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: Could you give me your armbucket_dimensions.pdf file in post 42, except make all dimensions and angles therein accurate to six decimal places? And also ensure point G is accurate. I want to double-check my initial geometry.
P: 63
nvn,

Attached are the requested dimensions to 7 decimal places.
Attached Files
 armbucket dimensions.pdf (18.5 KB, 4 views)
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: Corrections to your armforces.pdf file are highlighted in blue in armforces12.png, attached below. Study this file, so you will understand the mistake you are making with minus signs. Remember this important rule. If a vector is drawn in the negative direction (or would cause a negative moment), then the term is preceded by a minus sign in the summation general equation.I made a mistake in a moment diagram calculation in a previous file, so I corrected my mistake in shearmomentforces12.png. Because moments are computed from the centerline of beam 2, the moment must be computed about point I, as shown in the file. Due to round-off error, the moment balance is off by -3.49, which is close enough and good. Attached Thumbnails
 P: 63 nvn, I think I understand what is going on with the moments. Since point G is the intersection of beam 1 and beam 2; anything from the right of point G has to be for beam 2. Likewise anything to the left of point G has to for beam1. Correct? If so, what happens if point C or D lands on intersection G? I'd assume it would work in with and be calculated for both beams? I take it then our maximium moment for beam 1 is 45,350.3"# and beam two is 38,443.2"#? So, at this point this position is done being calculated, next is to start with position 2? Then finally position 3? Then we can use the biggest bending moment of each beam to size up the beams? I'll pay better attention to my signs. Thank you.
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: Paragraph 1 in post 50 is correct. If point C or D lands on point G, then let it be on beam 1. Or, you could say it is on both beams, if you wish. Either way you prefer. Yes, your maximum moment on beam 1 in post 50 is correct. You can see, the maximum moment on beam 2 is directly below point G on your moment diagram, not at point I. So far, your plan sounds good.
P: 63
nvn,

I understand what you are saying about point G and beam 2. The max moment for beam two is slightly lower than Beam 1 max moment.

I have attached the new position of the loader and bucket. I have found all forces acting on the bucket and also on the arm. I hope I improved this time around.

I did notice there is a slight error in the Y direction of the bucket, and also on the arm. I hope I did not make an error.

Thanks.
Attached Files
 POSITION2.pdf (12.1 KB, 3 views) BUCKETFORCESP2.pdf (29.5 KB, 6 views) ARMFOCESP2.pdf (31.1 KB, 5 views)
 Sci Advisor HW Helper P: 2,124 grandnat_6: All three files in post 52 are correct.
P: 63
nvn,

I've been keeping busy on this. Attached you will find my shear moment diagram for position 2.

I've also dimensioned position 3.

Let me know if I done anything wrong.

Thanks.
Attached Files
 ARMVECTORFORCES2.pdf (45.1 KB, 2 views) SHEAR_MOMENTFORCESP2.pdf (43.1 KB, 3 views) POSITION3.pdf (10.5 KB, 2 views)

 Related Discussions Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework 1 Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework 1 General Engineering 4