Static Equilibrium for an object in 3-dimension

In summary: I wrote this only because the input is so long and this is a summary so I want to cut it short. In summary, static equilibrium in a mechanical system requires the vector sum of all external forces to be zero and the vector sum of all external torques to be zero when measured about any possible point. This means that the object must not have a net angular acceleration on it, and thus ƩrxF must equal zero for all points O. Geometric compatibility refers to the geometric constraints set by the system or problem in hand, such as the position of points in a four bar linkage.
  • #1
Rasoul
5
0
I have studied a few online sources about static equilibrium in a mechanical system. My overall understanding is that for an object to be in static equilibrium, two following conditions have to be fulfilled:

1) Vector sum of all external forces that act on body must be zero.
2) Vector sum of all external torques that act on the body, measured about any possible point must be zero.

I fully understand condition (1), but the statement of condition (2) is not clear for me. Let's say that an object A is supported by two other objects, B and C, where each contact point, (A,B) and (A,C) could be a possible rotation axis for A. So, I can write 9 equations for unknown reaction forces:

set 1) F_{total, x} = 0, F_{total, y} = 0, F_{total, z} = 0
set 2) M_{total, (A,B), x} = 0, M_{total, (A,B), y} = 0, M_{total, (A,B), z} = 0
set 3) M_{total, (A,C), x} = 0, M_{total, (A,C), y} = 0, M_{total, (A,C), z} = 0

But we know that there exist only 6 independent equations. My question is that, if I use (set 1) and (set 2) to solve for unknown forces (I assume that the system has a solution), then can I deduce that the object A will also have zero torque about (A,C)? In other words, does a solution for (set 1) and (set 2) imply that that solution is also a solution for (set 1) and (set 3)?

I have found a case in which, all three objects are cuboids and the contact point (A,B) is a line segment (an edge of B on a face of A) but the contact point (A,C) is a single point (a vertex of C on a face of A). In this case, the solution of (set 1) and (set 2) is not a solution for (set 1) and (set 3).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hello Rasoul, I'm not sure if I read your example correctly but it is statically indeterminate in the general case.
 
  • #3
Studiot said:
... but it is "statically indeterminate" in the general case.

Hi, you are right! The system is staticaly indeterminate. I use nonlinear optimization to find a solution for the system. Do you think that I should use all 9 equations in my optimization to find a consistent solution? Alternatively, is that correct if I always calculate rotation about "center of mass" of an object and if a solution found, deduce that the object is in static equilibrium (about any possible axis of rotation)? Or do I have to calculate rotation about a "possible" axis of rotation?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Statically indeterminate means exactly that.

There are an infinite number of solutions that satisfy the equations of static equilibrium alone.

You have to supply other equations to solve the system.

Are the bodies rigid?

Then the only equations you have are those of geometric compatibility.

You can always do an energy/stability calculation to show that some configurations are less likely than others, but they are never mechanically impossible. For instance finding a pencil balanced on its point is less likeley than finding it lying down on the table.
 
  • #5
Studiot said:
You have to supply other equations to solve the system.
Are the bodies rigid?
Then the only equations you have are those of geometric compatibility.

Bodies are rigid and I assume that their geometrical shapes are cuboid. As an example, please see the attachement image file (the magnitude of forces are scaled for visualization purposes). I have done calculation about the edge (Box<21>, Box<11>) as the axis of rotation and the optimization solver found a solution that satisfies the static equilibrium condition, but it is intutive that the box<21> cannot be static. On the other hand, if I run optimization solver with torque calculation about contact point between the Box<21> and Box<17> (which is a single point), there is no solution for.

What do you mean by "geometric compatibility" ?
 

Attachments

  • scshot001.png
    scshot001.png
    17 KB · Views: 430
  • #6
Geometric compatibility refers to the geometric constraints set by the system or problem in hand.

This may be a zero differential or displacement or rotation (or other known value) that the system can take up.

Four example in a four bar linkage if you set the position of three points of the quad, the lengths of the links describe a locus of the possible positions of the fourth point.
 
  • #7
I see this greatly deviated from your original question which was understanding this:

2) Vector sum of all external torques that act on the body, measured about any possible point must be zero.

For an object to be in static equilibrium, one of the requirements is that the object must not have a net acceleration on it. This is why (1) is so easy to see because ƩF = 0 since the a in (ƩF = ma) is 0.

But another condition that is hardly explicitly stated in Statics textbooks is that the object must not have a net angular acceleration on it. Remember from general physics that the Torque on an object is ƩrXF where r is the distance from a force to some point O. The symbol x is to denote the cross product between the vectors r and F. It is shown that ƩrxF = I[itex]\alpha[/itex] where I is the objects moment of inertia and [itex]\alpha[/itex] is the objects angular acceleration. Because any point O can be chosen, ƩrxF is dependent on the choice of O and you will get different angular acceleration values with different choices of the point O. In Engineering, we call the Torque, Moment. Same thing, different names. Actually, most engineers refer to Moment when talking about bending and Torque when talking about twisting, but they are the same thing. Since the angular acceleration must equal 0 for the object, and the angular acceleration depends on the choice of the vector r, that must mean that ƩrxF must equal 0 for every r and thus every point O.

If the next question is..."Well isn't ƩrxF already equal to 0 because ƩF = 0?" Not necessarily.
Read about "couples" to learn why this is true.

Also, a common mistake is to believe that ƩrxF = ƩrxƩF ...this is not true mathematically for all cases.
 
  • #8
Not done.

So that's what the "about every possible point" means. Creating cuts will not grant you more independent equations which is what Studiot is saying. For statics, you have 6 independent equations and can solve for six independent unknowns. If the number of independent equations exceeds the number of equations, you can not solve by the equations of Statics alone. They can be solved, but you need to generate additional equations regarding how the structure deforms. This is what Studiot eluded to when he spoke of geometric compatibility.
 

What is static equilibrium for an object in 3-dimension?

Static equilibrium for an object in 3-dimension refers to a state in which an object is at rest and is not moving or rotating. This means that all the forces acting on the object are balanced and there is no net force or torque acting on the object.

How is static equilibrium achieved for an object in 3-dimension?

Static equilibrium is achieved when the sum of all the forces acting on an object is equal to zero and the sum of all the torques acting on the object is also equal to zero. This means that the object is not accelerating or rotating.

What are the requirements for static equilibrium in 3-dimension?

In order for an object to be in static equilibrium in 3-dimension, the following conditions must be met:

  • The sum of all the forces acting on the object must be equal to zero.
  • The sum of all the torques acting on the object must be equal to zero.
  • All the forces acting on the object must be coplanar, meaning they must lie in the same plane.

How does the center of mass affect static equilibrium in 3-dimension?

The center of mass of an object plays a crucial role in determining its stability and achieving static equilibrium. If the center of mass is above the base of support, the object will be stable and will not tip over. If the center of mass is outside the base of support, the object will be unstable and will fall over.

What are some real-life applications of static equilibrium in 3-dimension?

Static equilibrium is important in various real-life situations, such as:

  • Building structures: Architects and engineers must ensure that the buildings they design are in static equilibrium to prevent collapse.
  • Balance and stability: Objects such as chairs, tables, and bicycles must be in static equilibrium to be stable and safe to use.
  • Weight distribution in vehicles: In order for a vehicle to be in static equilibrium, the weight must be evenly distributed to prevent tipping over.

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
669
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
6
Views
839
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
826
  • Classical Physics
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top