Calculating Shear Flow in a Hollow Beam: Understanding Mistakes in Dimensioning

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating shear flow in a hollow beam, specifically addressing discrepancies in results obtained by different methods. One participant calculated Q as 30,000 mm³ using the formula Q = Ay, while another claimed the correct answer was 29,750 mm³. The confusion arose from incorrect area dimensions used by the author of the original problem. Ultimately, the consensus is that the correct calculation yields 30,000 mm³, as the author miscalculated the areas involved.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of shear flow concepts in structural engineering
  • Familiarity with the Q calculation formula: Q = Ay
  • Knowledge of beam cross-section analysis
  • Proficiency in dimensional analysis and unit conversions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of shear flow in hollow beams
  • Learn about accurate area dimensioning in structural calculations
  • Explore common mistakes in calculating shear flow and how to avoid them
  • Review examples of Q calculations in different beam configurations
USEFUL FOR

Structural engineers, civil engineering students, and anyone involved in beam analysis and shear flow calculations will benefit from this discussion.

fonseh
Messages
521
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


for shear flow at D , the Q = Ay , i tried another method , i gt 30000 , instead of 29750, why the ans is different from 29750? why can't i use this method( i break the shaded area into 3 parts ( as shown in figure)

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Q = Ay = (60x10x35) + (2x30x10x150 = 30000[/B]
http://imgur.com/a/VXDK6
 

Attachments

  • 7.8.PNG
    7.8.PNG
    61.5 KB · Views: 501
Physics news on Phys.org
The author is wrong the Q is 30 in^3 I don't know why you added those zeroes to get 30000
 
  • Like
Likes fonseh
PhanthomJay said:
The author is wrong the Q is 30 in^3 I don't know why you added those zeroes to get 30000
http://imgur.com/a/VXDK6
here' my working , Q = Ay = (60x10x35) + (2x30x10x150) = 30000 , or the author's working 29750 is correct ? which cut is correct ? My cut of section into 3 parts is different from the author's working
, sorry , i posted the wrong notes...here it is
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0034.JPG
    DSC_0034.JPG
    39.4 KB · Views: 497
Ok then you are correct, good work..
 
  • Like
Likes fonseh
PhanthomJay said:
Ok then you are correct, good work..
do you mean the author can't cut the beam like this ? why ?
 

Attachments

  • f344.png
    f344.png
    75.9 KB · Views: 501
The author cut the beam at the neutral axis to determine Q about the neutral axis, just like you did. But the author messed it up and didn't calculate the areas correctly, what more can I say you are right and they are wrong. Let it be!
 
  • Like
Likes fonseh
PhanthomJay said:
The author cut the beam at the neutral axis to determine Q about the neutral axis, just like you did. But the author messed it up and didn't calculate the areas correctly, what more can I say you are right and they are wrong. Let it be!
no , i am concern about how should the beam be cut ? i divided the beam into 3 parts like this(red) , whereas the author divided the beam into 3 parts like this (green), i gt 30000 , but the author gt 29750 , there's a difference of 250 , which is correct ?
i checked thru the author's my working using calculator , i gt 29750 based on his working
 

Attachments

  • 442.png
    442.png
    934 bytes · Views: 442
  • 443.png
    443.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 452
come on now I keep telling you the author made a mistake !

He/she did not use those green areas...they dimensioned incorrectly. The numbers come out to 27500, but the numbers inputted are wrong. The correct ans is 30,000 mm^3.
 
PhanthomJay said:
come on now I keep telling you the author made a mistake !

He/she did not use those green areas...they dimensioned incorrectly. The numbers come out to 27500, but the numbers inputted are wrong. The correct ans is 30,000 mm^3.
sorry , i messed up QC and QD , question solved
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
28K