Discovering the Shape of a Bending Plate: Mathematical Proof in 2D Statics

  • Thread starter Thread starter ucsbphysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d Bending Plate
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the shape a beam takes when supported in the middle and bending under its own weight. Participants explore whether the resulting shape is an inverted parabola or a catenary, noting that a catenary applies to flexible beams supported at both ends, while a parabola relates to vertical deflection proportional to distance from the support. The conversation highlights the need for clarity regarding the beam's geometry and material properties, as the problem is considered under-specified. Suggestions include applying the principle of least action and treating the beam as a half-length beam bolted to a wall. Ultimately, the two scenarios are deemed physically identical if the beam's horizontal width is small enough to avoid significant distortion.
ucsbphysics
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This is sort of statics, but this came up in my physics class before.

You have a plate, supported only in the middle by a simple support. So, this beam is balanced on the support, and is bending under it's own weight. What shape does the beam take? I was thinking either a inverted parabola or catenary shape? But I don't know how to prove this.

How can you show mathematically that this is the shape it has?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF;
You have a plate, supported only in the middle by a simple support. So, this beam is balanced on the support, and is bending under it's own weight.
Is it a beam or a plate? What is it's geometry? What are it's material properties?

Continuing for a beam (metal? rectangular?):
What shape does the beam take? I was thinking either a inverted parabola or catenary shape?
Just on intuition?

A catenary would follow for a flexible beam supported at each end.
A parabola would imply that the vertical deflection is proportional to the square of the distance from the support.

But I don't know how to prove this.
Have you tried an application of the principle of least action?

For a beam where width W and height H are: W,H<<L, then try treating it as a half-length beam bolted to a wall at one end. What shape does that make?

Bottom line - the problem is under-specified.
Have you tried looking it up?
 
A plate with length L, and yes it is assumed that L>>H. It could be metal. Just has thickness, H and density, rho. That is just on intuition. Could you say something about the half-length beam attached to a wall because I see how you can treat that the same. The difference being the full beam doesn't have moment at the support.

Thank you!
 
In the full beam, the extra moment at the support is provided by the other half of the beam.
There is no net moment at the support in either case.
The two cases are physically identical provided the horizontal width is too small to have significant distortion.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top