Cantilever Effect on Different Thickness Plate

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the stress analysis of a plate with a non-standard geometry, specifically focusing on the cantilever effect and deflection under load. Participants explore the appropriate equations for calculating deflection and rotation at a specific point on the plate, considering the complexities introduced by varying thickness and geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Khowe9 describes the geometry of the plate and the need for deflection analysis, questioning the applicability of cantilever equations due to the plate's varying thickness.
  • Khowe9 proposes a moment equation for deflection at point B and discusses the summation of various equations for total deflection, expressing uncertainty about the rationale behind this summation.
  • Some participants suggest clarifying the labeling of points and dimensions in the diagrams to avoid confusion regarding the location of deflection measurement.
  • Khowe9 provides equations for deflection and rotation at point B, indicating a desire to understand the addition of deflections caused by shear force and moment.
  • Another participant emphasizes that both shear force and moment contribute to deflection, thus necessitating their summation.
  • Khowe9 expresses a need for additional resources to better understand the concept of summing deflections from different sources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to sum the contributions to deflection from shear force and moment. However, there remains uncertainty regarding the application of cantilever equations and the specifics of the deflection calculations, with no consensus on the best approach to take.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in understanding the geometry's impact on deflection calculations and the need for clearer labeling in diagrams. There are also unresolved questions about the appropriateness of using certain equations given the plate's non-uniform thickness.

Khowe9
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm working on some stress analysis for work. I'm analyzing the design of a plate, part of which is meant to deflect under a load. Due to this sheet metal plate being somewhat non-straight forward geometry, calculating correctly is a bit tricky.

I'm putting an undercut into the plate to allow for easier deflection. Since its not one solid thickness, I didnt know if I could use a cantilever equation.

I've included pictures, one of the CAD model showing what the actual plate looks like. The other, a cross section view at the cutout (hopefully this is the correct way to analyze).

http://img210.imageshack.us/i/beam1.png/

http://img121.imageshack.us/i/beam2.png/

I would assume I could use a moment equation, and simplify it to just analyze the thinner section:

Deflection @ B due to the moment: F(A-B)B^2/2EI

However, I've been told to also sum the above with the following equations:

Deflection at B due to F translated at B: FB^3/3EI

As well as factoring in rotation:

Rotation at 'B' due to F translated at 'B': FB^2/2EI
Rotation at 'B' due to the moment of F acting at 'A': F(A-B)B/EI

Multiplying both of the above rotation equations by (A-B), you'd get "increase in deflection".

To which they said I should end up with: FB(B^2/3+A^2-AB)/EI for total deflection at 'B'.

Does this seem correct? I understand where the deflection @ B due to F translated at B equation comes from (the others I'm a bit foggy on), but I don't understand why you would sum up all of these. It seems that if you choose to use the moment to analyze the equation, you don't factor in the other equations...

Any help is appreciated.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Khowe9: You indicate you want deflection at point B, but there is no point B shown on your diagram, only a dimension B. In the future, it is better if you label key points on your beam with, e.g., capital letters, and label dimensions with lowercase letters. Where do you want the deflection? At the end of the undercut? Or at the location of applied force F?
 
nvn said:
Khowe9: You indicate you want deflection at point B, but there is no point B shown on your diagram, only a dimension B. In the future, it is better if you label key points on your beam with, e.g., capital letters, and label dimensions with lowercase letters. Where do you want the deflection? At the end of the undercut? Or at the location of applied force F?

I want the area between the base(bottom) and B to flex much more than the top part (from B to A). The top part's bending should be negligible. I'm looking to calculate deflection at B.
 
Khowe9: The deflection at point B is yB = [F*(B^3)/(3*E*I1)] + [F*(A - B)(B^2)/(2*E*I1)]. The rotation at point B is thetaB = [F*(B^2)/(2*E*I1)] + [F*(A - B)(B)/(E*I1)].
 
Thanks nvn, but why is it you're able to sum the two together (equation of force->deflection and moment->deflection)?

This may be basic stuff, but I admit I'm very rusty at it.
 
Khowe9: The shear force causes a deflection, and the moment causes a deflection; therefore, you must add them together.
 
I believe you, I'm just not familiar with doing this.

Do you have any links to some reading material regarding the summing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
20K