Calculating Weight Savings with Rectangular Section Beam

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the minimum dimensions of a rectangular section beam that can support a given load without exceeding a specified bending stress. The original poster presents a scenario involving a square section cantilever beam and seeks to understand the weight savings when switching to a rectangular section beam with a specific depth-to-width ratio.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between beam dimensions and weight savings, questioning the original poster's intuitive assumption about weight reduction. There are inquiries about the calculations involved in determining the dimensions and weight savings of the rectangular beam.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on relationships between dimensions, while others have prompted the original poster to show calculations to clarify discrepancies in the expected weight savings. The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations and approaches being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted assumption regarding the relationship between the breadth and depth of the rectangular section beam, specifically that the depth is twice the width. Additionally, the original poster's calculations yield results that differ from expected outcomes, indicating potential misunderstandings or errors in the application of formulas.

MMCS
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
Here is the original question, i know the first answer as 182mm

A square section cantilever beam, 3 m in length, carries a concentrated load of 10 kN at its free end. If the maximum bending stress is not to exceed 30 MPa determine the minimum dimensions of the section.

Ans 182mm,

What would be the percentage saving in weight if a rectangular section beam, having a depth equal to twice its width, were to be used instead?

Intuitively it seems there would be a weight reduction of 50% if the width dimension was halved however I have the answer to be 29.6%, does somebody know how i would get to this?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why don't you show some calculations and see if the answer pops out.
 
MMCS said:
Intuitively it seems there would be a weight reduction of 50% if the width dimension was halved
Equally intuitively, it would have half the load bearing capability. There would have to be a corresponding increase in depth.
 
How would i use this in the fomula? To solve the first question i used I to be x*x^3/12, but now because it is of rectangular cross section i would use b and d, however this gives me two uknowns
 
You know a relationship between breadth and depth. From the OP, assume D = 2*B
 
Here is my working, i am a few percent off, can you see any mistakes?
 

Attachments

  • working.png
    working.png
    4.6 KB · Views: 591

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K