Castigliano's Second Theorem on Curved Structures

  • Thread starter Thread starter Triskelion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Structures Theorem
AI Thread Summary
A problem involving a semi-circular ring supported by hinges and subjected to a vertical load F is analyzed to determine the horizontal displacement at the roller support. The discussion revolves around applying Castigliano's Second Theorem, where moments are calculated for different sections of the structure. A negative sign in the displacement calculation raises questions about its implications, suggesting movement to the left, which seems counterintuitive. The issue is resolved when the contributor realizes they overlooked the reaction forces in their calculations. This highlights the importance of thorough checks in structural analysis.
Triskelion
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A semi-circular ring of stiffness EI and radius R is supported on an anchored hinge and on a roller hinge. A vertical load F is applied at the center. Determine the horizontal displacement of the roller support.
62QT1EH.jpg


Homework Equations


vVmJPC5.jpg


The Attempt at a Solution


So I apply a horizontal force H (to the right) at the roller. Sectioning the first quadrant gives M_1=HR sinθ_1 (moment is taken as positive clockwise). So \frac{∂M_1}{∂H}=R sinθ_1. Similarly, M_2=HR cosθ_2-FRsinθ_2 and \frac{∂M_2}{∂H}=R cosθ_2. Because H is an imaginary load and setting it to 0, M_1=0, \frac{∂M_1}{∂H}=R sinθ_1, M_2=-FRsinθ_2 and \frac{∂M_2}{∂H}=R cosθ_2. So the integral is \int_0^ \frac{π}{2} \frac{M_1}{EI} \frac{∂M_1}{∂H}R dθ_1 + \int_0^ \frac{π}{2} \frac{M_2}{EI} \frac{∂M_2}{∂H}R dθ_2. The first integral is zero. The second gives \int_0^ \frac{π}{2} \frac{-FR^3}{2EI} sin2θ_2 dθ_2=\frac{-FR^3}{2EI}. I checked my workings, and I have no idea why there is a negative sign there. If my understanding is correct, the negative sign implies roller movement to the left, and this is really counter intuitive. Can anyone shed some light on this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It might be clearer if you include a free body diagram for the derivation of your equations but my first comment is that M2 doesn't seem right.
 
paisiello2 said:
It might be clearer if you include a free body diagram for the derivation of your equations but my first comment is that M2 doesn't seem right.
Hey, thank you for the hint. It was like an epiphany. Turns out that I've forgotten the reaction forces all along. Funny how the human mind works, one can keep checking the thing for days without figuring what's wrong.
 
Back
Top