MHB Collin's question at Yahoo Answers regarding maximization of beam strength

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on maximizing the strength of a rectangular beam cut from a circular log with a cross-section defined by the equation x^2+y^2=256. The strength of the beam is expressed as S(D,W)=kD^2W, where D is depth and W is width. By applying calculus, the optimal width is determined to be W=32/√3, leading to a corresponding depth of D=32√(2/3). The second derivative test confirms that this critical point represents a maximum for the beam's strength. The solution also mentions the potential use of Lagrange multipliers for a multi-variable approach.
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Calculus Max Min Application Problem?


If the strength of a rectangular beam is proportional to the product of its width and the square of its depth, find the dimensions of the strongest beam that could be cut from a log whose cross section is a circle of the form x^2+y^2=256

Please show work, thanks.

I have posted a link there to this thread so the OP can view my work.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello Collin,

Let's let $0<W$ be the width (horizontal dimension) of the beam's cross-section and $0<D$ be the depth (vertical dimension). The strength $S$ of the beam is our objective function:

$$S(D,W)=kD^2W$$ where $$0<k\in\mathbb{R}$$ is the constant of proportionality.

The vertices of the beam's cross-section must obviously confined to the circle:

$$x^2+y^2=16^2$$

Hence:

$$W=2x\implies x=\frac{W}{2}$$

$$D=2y\implies y=\frac{D}{2}$$

And so we may write:

$$\left(\frac{W}{2} \right)^2+\left(\frac{D}{2} \right)^2-16^2=0$$

Thus, we may express the constraint as:

$$g(D,W)=D^2+W^2-32^2=0$$

Solving the constraint for $D^2$, we obtain:

$$D^2=32^2-W^2$$

Substituting into the objective function, we find:

$$S(W)=k\left(32^2-W^2 \right)W=k\left(32^2W-W^3 \right)$$

Differentiating with respect to $W$ and equating the result to zero, we find:

$$S'(W)=k\left(32^2-3W^2 \right)=0$$

Taking the positive root, we obtain the critical value:

$$W=\frac{32}{\sqrt{3}}$$

Using the second derivative test to determine the nature of the extremum associated with this critical value, we find:

$$S''(W)=-6kW$$

Since $$0<W$$ then $$S''(W)<0$$ demonstrating that we have found a relative maximum of the objective function. Hence, the dimensions which maximize the beam's strength are:

$$D\left(\frac{32}{\sqrt{3}} \right)=\sqrt{32^2-\left(\frac{32}{\sqrt{3}} \right)^2}=32\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}$$

$$W=\frac{32}{\sqrt{3}}$$

We could also use a multi-variable technique, Lagrange multipliers.

We have the objective function:

$$S(D,W)=kD^2W$$

subject to the constraint:

$$g(D,W)=D^2+W^2-32^2=0$$

giving rise to the system:

$$2kDW=\lambda(2D)$$

$$kD^2=\lambda(2W)$$

Thus:

$$\lambda=kW=\frac{kD^2}{2W}\implies D^2=2W^2$$

substituting into the constraint, we obtain:

$$2W^2+W^2-32^2=0$$

$$W=\frac{32}{\sqrt{3}}$$

$$D=\sqrt{2}W=32\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}$$
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top