Deriving 1D Stress Field in a Bar

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the one-dimensional stress field in a bar subjected to longitudinal surface loading and a concentrated load at one end. Participants explore the application of Newton's laws and the implications of different loading conditions on stress distribution within the bar.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a non-rigorous derivation of the stress field for a bar with a longitudinal surface loading and seeks to extend this to a case with a concentrated load at one end.
  • There is uncertainty about how to incorporate the concentrated load into the differential equation, with one participant questioning whether it should be treated as acting along the entire length of the bar.
  • Another participant suggests using Airy Stress Functions to solve the problem, indicating a potential alternative approach.
  • Concerns are raised about the static equilibrium of the bar, with one participant noting that the bar's support conditions are not clear.
  • One participant proposes that the concentrated load could be treated as a boundary condition rather than being included in the differential forces.
  • There is a discussion about the behavior of normal stress under constant surface traction, with a suggestion that it increases linearly with distance from the end of the bar.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to consider the deflection of the bar due to the applied loading.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to incorporate the concentrated load into the stress analysis, and there is no consensus on the correct approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the application of Newton's laws and the treatment of boundary conditions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their assumptions, particularly regarding the application of forces and the static equilibrium of the bar. The discussion also reflects uncertainty about the mathematical treatment of the problem, especially in integrating the differential equations.

Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7
So in one of my classes, we very non-rigorously derived the 1D stress field for a bar with a longitudinal surface loading T(x) like show below:

srfaceloadonly.jpg


By taking out a differential element (assuming constant cross-sectional area) and applying good old Newton's Second, we end up with:

[tex]A \,d\sigma=-T(x)dx[/tex]

which is easily separable to find [itex]\sigma(x)[/itex].

My problem now is to do the same assuming that a concentrated loading is applied to one end like shown below:

srfacelandpoint.jpg


Now I feel like this should be simple in that we are only adding on a constant force. But I am not sure where to add it? That is, when I take out an arbitrary differential element, do I apply the FA to the element? That is, do I assume that FA acts along the entire length of the bar like in elementary statics? Like I have shown below:

summation.jpg


I ask because if I do this, I end up with the following differential EQ:

[tex]A \,\frac{d\sigma}{dx} = -T(x)-\frac{F_A}{dx}[/tex]

which I am not sure what to do with (though I admit, I have not tried too hard).

Any insight would be appreciated.

~Casey

EDIT hmmm...maybe I am a little slow today :redface: I think that by multiplying through by dx might help out.

EDIT 2 maybe not...if I multiply through by 'dx' I end up with

[tex]d\sigma = -\frac{T(x)dx}{A} - \frac{F}{A}[/tex]

which I cannot figure out how to integrate. The last term [tex]\frac{F}{A}[/tex] does not have a 'differential' to which I would integrate with respect too.

As a matter of fact, it should act to remain as a constant stress; and it seems like it 'wants to' but I cannot get the mathematics to show it.
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Have you learned anything about Airy Stress Functions? I'm pretty sure this can be solved using an appropriate combination of stress functions.

Also, how is the bar being supported? The object in your figure is not in static equilibrium.
 
Brian_C said:
Have you learned anything about Airy Stress Functions? I'm pretty sure this can be solved using an appropriate combination of stress functions.

Also, how is the bar being supported? The object in your figure is not in static equilibrium.

Hi Brian,

It's cantilevered. No, I have not learned about the Airy stress functions. But, I feel like this should be pretty cut and dry Newton's Law here. I just think that something is going wrong with my assumption that I can put FA in with the other differential forces. I thought that I could do this using the principle of transmissibility , but perhaps this is an improper application of the principle.

I think that it might be better to include FA as a boundary condition.
 
See the attached pdf file. If the surface traction is constant, the normal stress will increase linearly with distance from the end of the bar.

The Airy stress function approach is appropriate if you want a more rigorous solution.
 

Attachments

Saladsamurai said:
As a matter of fact, it should act to remain as a constant stress; and it seems like it 'wants to' but I cannot get the mathematics to show it.

Agreed. Try drawing your first differential element at the location where the point force acts; you'll find that you have to add an equal and opposite force on the right side of the element to keep the element from translating. Any differential element to the left of the right end must therefore also include this force. Does this help?
 
Are you taking into consideration the deflection of the bar due to the T(x) load?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
9K