Engineering Statics Equilibrium

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about Engineering Statics Equilibrium, participants clarify the components of forces at pin support A and rocker support B. It is established that support A must exert a vertical force without an x-component to maintain equilibrium, contradicting the initial assumption that it has both x and y components due to its angled position. The conversation emphasizes that the slope of the beam does not affect the vertical reaction force at support A, which remains consistent regardless of the incline. The focus is on resolving forces correctly, highlighting that the horizontal and vertical components are independent in this context. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that the reaction at support A is purely vertical, with no horizontal component present.
logaliciouz
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
hi, for question two on the attached pdf, how would the equilibrium in the x work? From what i understand there must be an x and y component for the pin support at A because it acts at an angle but the support at B only has a y component because it is a rocker.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
logaliciouz said:
hi, for question two on the attached pdf, how would the equilibrium in the x work? From what i understand there must be an x and y component for the pin support at A because it acts at an angle but the support at B only has a y component because it is a rocker.
If there was an x (horizontal) component at the pin support A, then the beam could not be in equilibrium, which you appear to have concluded. So what does that imply about your statement that "there must be an x and y component for the pin support at A"? Is that true?
 
But if the support at A is acting on an angle, doesn't there mathematically have to be an x and y component to that force?
 
From equilibrium considerations, the reaction at A must be vertical. You can resolve that resultant reaction force into its vector components perpendicular and parallel to the incline if you want, but the resultant must be vertical.
 
Okay so basically rewriting it and just showing A as an upward force and ignoring the x-component altogether.
 
Well yes, A is upward, but it is not correct to say that you are ''ignoring'' the x-component, because no such x component exists. What you are ignoring is the slope when you solve for your shears and moments in the beam.
 
okay so the horizontal and vertical are not related to each other through the angle of the pin
 
logaliciouz said:
okay so the horizontal and vertical are not related to each other through the angle of the pin
Since there is no horizontal, there is no such relation. Whether the slope is 3:4 or 1:1 or vertical, or horixontal, or anything, the reaction is still upward of the same magnitude. The slope comes into play when you are considering the design of the support itself, not the beam.
 

Similar threads

Engineering Instantaneous Center of Rotation (Polplan in german) and STATICS
Replies
1
Views
1K
Engineering Motion of two balls connected by a rod
Replies
2
Views
3K
Engineering Static Vs Dynamic Force Analysis in Mechanism
Replies
3
Views
2K
Engineering Mechanics of materials -- deformation problem
Replies
6
Views
2K
Engineering 2nd Degree Inderteminacy for Structure Using Force Method
Replies
3
Views
2K
Spiral scissor lift statics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Engineering Calculate Static Equilibrium: SOH/CAH/TOA?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Engineering Hydrodynamic force on hinged flap gate
Replies
2
Views
2K
Engineering Two approaches in statics not adding up
Replies
5
Views
2K
Engineering Equilibrium equations of elastic body
Replies
31
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top