Calculating joint reaction forces

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on calculating joint reaction forces in biomechanics, specifically regarding the ankle forces represented by Fax and Fkx. The calculations presented show that when Fax is -125N, the correct interpretation leads to Fkx being +125N, ensuring that the sum of forces equals zero. The confusion arises from the definition of positive direction for the forces, but it is established that both forces should be treated consistently in terms of direction. Ultimately, the correct calculation is Fax + Fkx = 0, confirming that Fkx must be +125N.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of static equilibrium in biomechanics
  • Familiarity with force vector representation
  • Knowledge of joint reaction forces
  • Basic algebra for solving equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of static equilibrium in biomechanics
  • Learn about force vector decomposition in joint mechanics
  • Explore the concept of joint reaction forces in different anatomical contexts
  • Review algebraic methods for solving force equations in physics
USEFUL FOR

Biomechanics students, physical therapists, and professionals involved in sports science who are looking to deepen their understanding of joint reaction forces and static equilibrium principles.

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.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

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