Engineering Statics Equilibrium

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 3K views
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?
 
Okay so basically rewriting it and just showing A as an upward force and ignoring the x-component altogether.
 
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.