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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating shear flow in a hollow beam, specifically addressing discrepancies in the calculated values of Q based on different methods of dimensioning the beam. Participants explore various approaches to breaking down the beam into sections to determine the correct shear flow.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims to have calculated Q using a method that resulted in 30000, while another participant asserts that the correct value should be 29750.
  • Some participants question the validity of the author's method of breaking the shaded area into three parts, suggesting that the areas were dimensioned incorrectly.
  • There is a repeated assertion that the author made a mistake in their calculations, with one participant stating that the correct answer is 30000 mm3.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about which method of cutting the beam is correct, comparing their own division of the beam into three parts with the author's approach.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in their calculations, indicating that they initially miscalculated values QC and QD.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct method for calculating Q, with multiple competing views on the accuracy of the author's calculations and the appropriate way to dimension the beam.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions made in the calculations, particularly concerning the areas used in determining Q and the methods of cutting the beam. Some calculations appear to depend on specific interpretations of the beam's geometry.

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: 516
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   Reactions: 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: 508
Ok then you are correct, good work..
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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: 513
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   Reactions: 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: 456
  • 443.png
    443.png
    1.1 KB · Views: 462
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
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
28K