Carry over factor in beam calculation -- confusion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the carry over factor in beam calculations, specifically in the context of structural analysis. Participants express confusion regarding the application of this factor in various scenarios and its implications for beam behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the values of the carry over factor (K) for beams BC and CB, suggesting it should be K = (3/4)(EI / L) based on observations from beam BA.
  • The same participant expresses confusion about the carry over factor for beam BA, arguing that it should be 0.5, similar to other beams (AB, BC, CD), rather than 0.
  • Another participant notes that the term "carry over factor" is unfamiliar and suggests that the original poster clarify their question for better understanding.
  • Further replies reiterate the unfamiliarity with the term and suggest consulting the syllabus or the person who created it for clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the correct values or definitions related to the carry over factor, indicating multiple competing views and ongoing confusion regarding the terminology and its application.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of clarity regarding the definitions and applications of the carry over factor, as well as the assumptions underlying the calculations presented. The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with the terminology used in structural analysis.

fonseh
Messages
521
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



I have several question regrading with this post .
1.) For BC and CB , we could see that it's far end pinned / roller supported , so , shouldn't be the K = (3/4)(EI / L ) ?
2.) I don't understand how the carry over factor works (in the second picture)

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


1.) I think the K for BC and CB are wrong , it should be K = (3/4)(EI / L ) ,, because at BA, we could see that K = (3/4)(EI / L ) ... [/B]
2.) I don't understand for the carry over factor for BA is 0 ... We can see that for AB , BC and also CD , the carry over factor is 0.5 , so shoulnt the carry over factor for BA is 0.5 also ?
 

Attachments

  • 614.png
    614.png
    24.2 KB · Views: 899
  • 615.png
    615.png
    33.1 KB · Views: 694
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm going to guess that you are not getting much response here, at least in part, to the use of the term "carry over factor." This is a strange term to me, and I've been doing things like this for a very long time. Can you re-word you question to convey your meaning more clearly?
 
Dr.D said:
I'm going to guess that you are not getting much response here, at least in part, to the use of the term "carry over factor." This is a strange term to me, and I've been doing things like this for a very long time. Can you re-word you question to convey your meaning more clearly?
it's in the structural analysis syllabus ...It's carry over factor ,
 
The perhaps you can ask the person who drew up the syllabus what it means.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K