Beam deflection integration help

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical derivation and interpretation of beam deflection equations, specifically the right-hand side (RHS) of the equations involving EIy' and EIy''. Participants are seeking clarification on the integration process involved in transitioning from EIy'' to EIy' and the implications of singularity functions in this context. The scope includes technical reasoning and mathematical formulation related to beam mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the transition from EIy'' to EIy' involves integration with respect to dx, suggesting that it may not be straightforward integration.
  • One participant proposes a specific form for EIy'', questioning why it should not equal a particular expression involving forces at different points along the beam.
  • Another participant mentions the use of singularity functions and the need to adhere to specific integration rules when interpreting these expressions.
  • There is a challenge regarding the omission of certain moments in the author's interpretation of the equations, with one participant suggesting that the author may have overlooked forces acting at the ends of the beam.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the correctness of their interpretations versus the author's, indicating a lack of consensus on the mathematical expressions presented.
  • One participant raises a question about the conditions under which a singularity function equals zero, suggesting that the interpretation may depend on the specific values of x in relation to a given point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct interpretation of the RHS of EIy'' and EIy'. Multiple competing views remain regarding the integration process and the treatment of singularity functions.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions and applications of singularity functions in this context, as well as the specific conditions under which certain mathematical expressions are valid. Participants express uncertainty about the implications of these assumptions on their interpretations.

chetzread
Messages
798
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


can someone explain about the RHS of EIy' and EIy'' ?
how to get the RHS of EIy" from RHS of EIy' ??
It's not integration of dx , am i right?
BT25I3i.jpg

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


if it's integration of dx, it should look like this , right?[/B]
EIy' = 0.25P(x^2) - 0.5P(x^2) +0.5PLx ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
chetzread said:

Homework Statement


can someone explain about the RHS of EIy' and EIy'' ?
how to get the RHS of EIy" from RHS of EIy' ??
It's not integration of dx , am i right?

Why don't you think it's integration to go from EIy" to EIy'? What else would it be?
BT25I3i.jpg

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


if it's integration of dx, it should look like this , right?[/B]
EIy' = 0.25P(x^2) - 0.5P(x^2) +0.5PLx ??[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily.
 
SteamKing said:
Why don't you think it's integration to go from EIy" to EIy'? What else would it be?
BT25I3i.jpg

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


if it's integration of dx, it should look like this , right?[/B]
EIy' = 0.25P(x^2) - 0.5P(x^2) +0.5PLx ??

Not necessarily.[/QUOTE]for the EIy" , why shouldn't it = 0.5Px - P(x-0.5L) - 0.5P( L-x) ??
 
chetzread said:
Not necessarily.
for the EIy" , why shouldn't it = 0.5Px - P(x-0.5L) - 0.5P( L-x) ??[/QUOTE]
It's hard to make out from the image provided, but it appears you start with:

##EIy" = \frac{1}{2} Px - P<x-L>##

Now, the expression P<x-L> usually represents some kind of singularity function, and you don't split up the expression inside the <>.
These expressions usually have some special integration rules which must be followed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chetzread
does the author left out something ? as we can see from the diagram , there are 2 P/2 force at 2 different ends...
 
Last edited:
chetzread said:
It's hard to make out from the image provided, but it appears you start with:

##EIy" = \frac{1}{2} Px - P<x-L>##

Now, the expression P<x-L> usually represents some kind of singularity function, and you don't split up the expression inside the <>.
These expressions usually have some special integration rules which must be followed.
##EIy" = \frac{1}{2} Px - P<x-L>## this is the author's idea , my idea is = 0.5Px - P(x-0.5L) - 0.5P( L-x)
Which is correct ? the author ? or me ?[/QUOTE]
Obviously, the author is the expert on the interpretation of his own text.

You are not allowed to make up your own mathematics if it does not follow what the author intends.
 
SteamKing said:
##EIy" = \frac{1}{2} Px - P<x-L>## this is the author's idea , my idea is = 0.5Px - P(x-0.5L) - 0.5P( L-x)

why the author ignore the moment 0.5P( L-x) ?
 
for this question, why did C2=0?
in singularity function, <x-a> = 0 only if x<a , and <x-a> =1 if x > a ,
but, in this question, x is drawn beyond 0.5: (a) , am i right?
So, there's also a possibility of <x-a> =1 , am i right?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K