Calculating Weight Savings with Rectangular Section Beam

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the weight savings when using a rectangular section beam instead of a square section beam for a cantilever beam application. The original square beam dimensions yield a maximum bending stress of 30 MPa with a width of 182 mm. When considering a rectangular beam with a depth twice its width, the intuitive assumption of a 50% weight reduction is challenged, as the calculated weight savings is actually 29.6%. Participants emphasize the need for proper calculations using the moment of inertia formula for rectangular sections, while addressing the relationship between width and depth. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding structural mechanics to accurately determine weight savings and load-bearing capabilities.
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: 574
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top