Calculating joint reaction forces

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of joint reaction forces at the ankle in a biomechanics context. Participants analyze the summation of forces, particularly focusing on the directionality of the forces involved. The calculations presented lead to two interpretations: one suggesting Fkx should be +125N and the other indicating it as -125N, highlighting a confusion over the definition of positive direction. The consensus is that the forces should be treated consistently, with Fax defined as -125N leading to Fkx being +125N. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that clarity in defining force directions is crucial for accurate calculations.
Haku
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
If the joint reaction force at the ankle in the x direction is -125N, calculate the joint reaction force at the knee in the x direction (assuming those are the only two horizontal forces acting on it)
Relevant Equations
Summation
I have this question in my biomechanics class, and the way the teacher has solved it raised some questions with me.
This is the snippet of work from the lecture slides:
Screen Shot 2021-10-12 at 8.20.09 AM.png

But, if we see the red variables acting as 'placeholders' for the value of respective forces, and the value of the force at the ankle in x direction is -125N.
When summing all ankle forces in x direction it looks like the direction is accounted for twice, because what the summation is if you leave the variables as placeholders for the actual values is:

Fax + Fkx = 0.

=>

Fkx = -Fax = -(-125N) = 125N.

What I get from the calculation done in the picture is the following:

-Fax + Fkx = 0

<=>

-(-125N) + Fkx = 0

=>

Fkx = -125N

But in this case, you have applied the direction of the joint reaction force at the ankle twice right?
Which calculation is correct? Imo the former calculation is more mathematically sound, but I am not sure since it is contradictory to calculation given in class.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would not describe it as having applied a force twice. Rather, it is a confusion over how the positive direction has been defined.
Where it is clear that two forces will act in opposite directions, it is not unusual to define each to be positive in the direction it will act. That would give the summation equation in the snippet, but in that model the value should have been inserted as +125N.

Since the given force is specified as negative, it is more natural to use the same direction as positive for all forces. That leads to Fax + Fkx = 0, so, again, an answer of +125N.
 
haruspex said:
I would not describe it as having applied a force twice. Rather, it is a confusion over how the positive direction has been defined.
Where it is clear that two forces will act in opposite directions, it is not unusual to define each to be positive in the direction it will act. That would give the summation equation in the snippet, but in that model the value should have been inserted as +125N.

Since the given force is specified as negative, it is more natural to use the same direction as positive for all forces. That leads to Fax + Fkx = 0, so, again, an answer of +125N.
Right, but we don't know the direction of force for Fkx. We just know that they are static, so ma = 0. Hence the sum of the forces is 0.
So should it just be Fax + Fkx = 0, then since we know Fax = -125N we can solve for Fkx right?
 
Haku said:
Right, but either way, with Fax defined as -125N, the resulting Fkx should be +125N right?
Yes.
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
9K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K