Beam (composed of two materials) Axial Loading

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analysis of a beam composed of two different materials under axial loading. Participants explore how to determine the deformation of the beam as a function of position, considering the forces at play and the properties of the materials involved. The conversation includes aspects of solid mechanics, including the calculation of reaction forces and deformation due to weight and applied loads.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks help in calculating the supportive forces P1 and P2 and their relationship to the total weight W of the beam.
  • Another participant questions whether P1 and P2 are constant throughout the beam and whether they share the load equally, suggesting P1 = P2 = 1/2 W.
  • A later reply corrects the assumption that P1 and P2 are equal, stating that the axial force is not constant and providing expressions for the forces acting on different sections of the beam.
  • Participants discuss the integration limits for calculating deformation, with some suggesting that the limits should vary based on the position within the beam.
  • One participant proposes using superposition to analyze a simplified version of the problem with a single material, questioning the effects of varying forces along the length of the beam.
  • Another participant clarifies that if only an end force is applied, the force in the rod remains constant along its length, but this is contested regarding the integration limits.
  • Multiple participants express confusion over the complexity of the problem and seek clarity on the simpler one-material model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the assumptions regarding the forces P1 and P2, with some arguing for their equality and others contesting this view. There is also uncertainty about the correct limits of integration for calculating deformation, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions made regarding the forces and the integration limits, which may affect the calculations. The discussion also highlights the complexity of the problem and the potential for confusion in applying solid mechanics principles.

Xaspire88
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Hi

Im trying to help a friend of mine out with this problem he has in a solid mechanics class he is taking, but it has been awhile since I took that course so i was hoping you guys could help me help him :)

Here is the problem he gave me.

Beam-Axialloading.jpg


in that image p1 p2 and E1 E2 are the density and Youngs modulus respectively

So what we are needing to find is the deformation of the 2 material beam as a function of postion (x). He said his prof. instructed him to first find the 'supportive' forces P1 P2 and then solve for the deformation in terms of those. Since this beam is fully constrained we know that the total deformation will be zero (0) and that P1+P2= W where W is equal to the weight force downward acting on the entire beam. Where I have a hard time is knowing how to solve for these P1 & P2 forces, with the equations:

1: P1 + P2 = W
2: 0=(deformation part 1)+(deformation part 2)

first since when I make my 'cuts' in region 1 and 2 to solve for the deformation in that portion of the beam I have another force say p(x) which is dependent on those other forces.

Any insight, helpful links would be appreciated. I know you guys used to help me out with my HW so hopefully you can help me on this. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Some thoughts that I need clarifying.

1. In the sketch in my last post are P1 and P2 constant through out the beam? Like I said it's been a while since I have studied this material, but I want to say yes.

2. If they are constant, do P1 and P2 share the load W(weight of the beam) equally? Leading me to: Are P1 and P2 = 1/2 W?

Edit:
I fear I may of made a huge mistake on those pages I posted so I took them down.

Equations I used based off of above assumptions.

1. P1=P2=1/2W(total weight)=1/2(p1gAL1+p2gaL2)

2. In region 1 p(x)= P2-w(x)=1/2Wt-w(x)=gA[1/2(p1L1+p2L2)-p1x]

3. In region 2 p(x)= P2-w(x)=1/2Wt-w(x)=gA[1/2(p1L1+p2L2)-p2x]

then using these p(x) solving for\delta in each region 1 & 2

Region 1: limits of integration from 0 to x

\delta(x)=(gx)/(2E1)[(p1L1+p2L2)-p1x]


Region 2: limits of integration from (0 to L1) + (L1 to x)


\delta(x)=(gL1)/(2E1)[(p1L1+p2L2)-p1L1]+g/(2E2)[[(p1L1+p2L2)x-p2x^2]-[(p1L1+p2L2)L1-p2L1^2]]
 
Last edited:
Xaspire88: I will herein change your reaction forces P1 and P2 at the fixed supports to R1 and R2, to avoid confusion. And like you, I will use p1 and p2 for the densities.

No, the axial force throughout the beam is not constant. You made a mistake by assuming R1 = R2.

When you make your section cut in region 1 (with the free body below the cut), you can see the upward force acting on the section cut is F1(x) = p1*g*A*x - R1, for 0 ≤ x ≤ L1. And when you make your section cut in region 2 (with the free body below the cut), you can see the upward force acting on the section cut is F2(x) = p1*g*A*L1 + p2*g*A*(x - L1) - R1, for L1 < x ≤ (L1 + L2).

The deformation in region 1 is delta1(x) = integral{[F1(x)/(E1*A)]*dx}, integrated from x = 0 to x. The deformation in region 2 is delta2(x) = delta1(L1) + integral{[F2(x)/(E2*A)]*dx}, integrated from x = L1 to x.

Now, to find R1, we know delta2(L1 + L2) = 0, right? Therefore, solve delta2(L1 + L2) = 0 for R1. Afterwards, you have delta(x) = {delta1(x) for 0 ≤ x ≤ L1, delta2(x) for L1 < x ≤ (L1 + L2)}.
 

Attachments

  • rod-axial-loading-01.png
    rod-axial-loading-01.png
    1.8 KB · Views: 728
Here is a simplified version of this problem.

th_SimplifiedProblem.jpg


In this version we just have one material.

Can I do what I have done in that image?

Since total deformation of the beam is 0 can we think of it as the beam first being compressed by its own weight, and then be extended by the upward force F1?

Also the weight force varies over the object but does F1 in this case? Should my limits of integration for F1 be from 0 -> x?
 
Last edited:
To answer your second question in post 4, yes, you can use superposition to solve that problem. To answer your third question, if you apply only an end force to the rod, but you apply no other applied load (not even gravity), then the force in the rod is constant along the length of the rod. Yes, the limits of integration should be 0 to x.

In your post 4 image, delta_w(x) + delta_F1 = 0 is incorrect, and should instead be delta_w(L) + delta_F1 = 0. Otherwise, the image looks OK.
 
*Edit: "To answer your third question, if you apply only an end force to the rod, but you apply no other applied load (not even gravity), then the force in the rod is constant along the length of the rod. Yes, the limits of integration should be 0 to x." You say the force in the rod is constant along the length of the rod but if I integrate from 0->x then i get a F1 as a function of x... so then it would be dependent upon the position within the rod?*

*First Scenario delta_w integrated from 0->L and delta_F1 integrated from 0->x:*

So my limits of integration for my delta_w were wrong and should instead be 0->L in which case:

delta_F1= delta_w(L)

(F1*x)/(A*E)=(p*g*L^2)/(2*E)

and

F1=(p*g*A*L^2)/2x

then from this make a cut in the beam and there will be a p(x) upward on the bottom portion of the beam below the cut p(x)= w(of the top portion) - F1 = p*g*A(L-x) - (p*g*A*L^2)/x

p(x)= p*g*A[(L-x)-(L^2)/2x]

and my delta_x(deformation as a function of x for the whole beam) =

\int(p*g*A[(L-x)-(L^2)/2x])/(A*E)dx from 0 -> x

works out to

delta_x = (p*g[L*x-(x^2)/2-(L^2)/2*ln(x)])/E

*Second Scenario delta_w integrated from 0->L and delta_F1 integrated from 0->L*

Then F1 = (p*g*A*L)/2

and total deformation:

delta_x= (p*g(L*x-x^2))/2EI get the feeling I am making this way harder than it actually is and it is driving me crazy
 
Last edited:
In the meantime, post 3 gives you a clear solution to your question in post 1.
 
The more I work on this the more confused I get. For now I just want to be able to clearly understand the simple one material model, and have an answer in front of me that I don't have to second guess. ugh.
 
OK, for a simple one-material model, use post 3, letting L2 = 0. This transforms the solution to a one-material model. Therefore, you already have a clear solution, given in post 3, even for the one-material model.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K