Deflection equation using Macaulay's

  • Thread starter Thread starter sponsoraw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Deflection
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the deflection equation for a beam using Macaulay's method. Participants are addressing specific values related to reactions, material properties, and moment of inertia, while also examining the correctness of the equations and calculations involved in determining deflection.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Initial calculations include reactions R1 and R2, modulus of elasticity E, and moment of inertia I, but there is uncertainty about the uniform distributed load (u.d.l.) starting point.
  • One participant points out that the u.d.l. starts at x = 0, while the bending moment (BM) equation incorrectly starts at x = 2 m, suggesting a need for correction.
  • Another participant highlights the need to add a term for reaction R2 at x = 5 m, although they note it may not affect the BM expression values.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the integration constants in the bending moment expression and the calculation of deflections, with specific numerical discrepancies noted.
  • One participant reports correcting a value from 0.56 to 0.4175, but finds that this adjustment leads to even larger deflections, indicating a potential error in their calculations.
  • Another participant agrees that the deflection calculations are correct but points out minor rounding errors and suggests that the large deflections imply the beam's bending stresses exceed the elastic limit for steel.
  • Discussion includes the validity of the equation M/EI = y" under the assumption of small slopes, which may not hold true given the calculated deflections.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the calculations and the implications of large deflections. There is no consensus on the final values or the appropriateness of the beam choice for the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their calculations, including rounding errors and the assumptions underlying elastic beam theory, particularly regarding the small slope approximation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners interested in beam deflection calculations, particularly those using Macaulay's method in structural engineering contexts.

sponsoraw
Messages
42
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


BEAM.PNG


I need to calculate the deflection equation.
R1=33kN
R2=32kN
E=210GPa
calculated I=5.4*10^-7 m^4

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


equation.PNG


Is the equation correct? I'm not sure if I got the u.d.l. right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sponsoraw said:

Homework Statement


View attachment 83515

I need to calculate the deflection equation.
R1=33kN
R2=32kN
E=210GPa
calculated I=5.4*10^-7 m^4

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


View attachment 83516

Is the equation correct? I'm not sure if I got the u.d.l. right.
Indeed, there is a problem with the UDL. The UDL starts at x = 0, whereas your BM equation has it starting at x = 2 m.

Also, for completeness, I would add a term for the reaction R2 located at x = 5 m, even though this would not affect any values calculated by the BM expression.
 
Sorry for the late reply. My current solution is attached.
 

Attachments

sponsoraw said:
Sorry for the late reply. My current solution is attached.
I noticed several things which need fixing.

1. In your expression for the BM, you have EI y" = 103[Mess].
When you integrate to find the slope, you wind up with EI y' = 103[Mess + A] and EI y = 103[Mess + Ax + B].
There's really no need to bring the constants of integration inside the brackets where the other terms are multiplied by 1000 due to the loading of the beam.

2. When you integrated the terms for the UDL, the expression -5x2 became -1.67x3 and then -0.56x4. I think -1.67 / 4 ≠ -0.56.
This same error pops up in the term which cuts off the UDL.

You should look at your deflections again, particularly checking the calculation of A and B. The magnitudes of your calculated deflections (one the order of 0.5 m) seem rather large given the length of this beam. Make sure you haven't misplaced a decimal somewhere.
 
Thanks, in that case one more time! I've corrected the 0.56 to 0.4175 and the value of A is now A=-75.878. Those changes however made the deflection even greater. I've checked everything a couple of times now and I can't see where I when wrong. I've attached the full calcs again. I'm a bit stuck now.
 

Attachments

sponsoraw said:
Thanks, in that case one more time! I've corrected the 0.56 to 0.4175 and the value of A is now A=-75.878. Those changes however made the deflection even greater. I've checked everything a couple of times now and I can't see where I when wrong. I've attached the full calcs again. I'm a bit stuck now.

I double checked your deflection calculations, and they are correct, but for a few round off errors. What you have as 0.4175 should be 0.4167, and I get A = -76.00.

Now that you have included the dimensions of the cross section of the beam, I can see why the deflections are so large. The max. bending stresses for the beam are way beyond the elastic limit for steel (whose E = 210 GPa) and are the same order of magnitude as E. This suggests that a real beam made of steel loaded and supported as shown in the OP would have failed completely.

In order for the equation M/EI = y" to be valid, the slope of the beam must be small, such that θ << 1, which is not the case here. While this beam is a good exercise for showing how to calculate deflection using McCauley's Method, it is a terrible choice because its deflections are much too large to satisfy the small slope approximation on which elastic beam theory is based.
 
Thanks for your help on that, it took a wee while. I shall round up all calcs to 4 d.p. for a better accuracy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
15K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K