Find force required to move pole with static friction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the force required to move a uniform pole weighing 150 lbs, supported at two points with a coefficient of static friction of 0.40 at each contact location. The original poster attempts to analyze the forces and moments acting on the pole using a free body diagram (FBD) and relevant equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the setup of the FBD, the calculation of normal and friction forces, and the moments about points of contact. Questions arise regarding the definition and direction of the normal force, particularly in relation to flat and curved surfaces. Some participants suggest that the friction force is parallel to the pole and question how to determine the magnitudes of forces without knowing the angles involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the forces involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of trigonometric functions derived from the given lengths rather than calculating angles directly. There is an acknowledgment of the importance of working algebraically to minimize rounding errors.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion regarding the setup of the FBD and the assumptions made about the forces acting on the pole. There is a recognition of the need for clarity in defining the normal force and its relationship to friction.

bkw2694
Messages
33
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The uniform 14-ft pole weighs 150 lbs and is supported as shown. Calculate the force P required to move the pole if the coefficient of static friction for each contact location is 0.40.

(Sorry for the sideways images!)
[/B]
33eonbd.jpg


Homework Equations


1.) Fmax = μs*N
2.) ∑M = 0
3.) ∑Fx = 0
4.) ∑Fy = 0

The Attempt at a Solution



Step 1[/B]
I began by setting up a FBD (shown below). At points A and B I have a Normal force N and friction force F. I placed the weight vector (150 lbs) in the middle of the 14 ft beam (so 7 ft). I calculated the angle closest to point B in order to find the x-direction distance to the weight vector (which I found to be 5.6 ft).

Step 2

Next I took the moment at point B, which gave me (-8)(NA) + (-5.6)(-150) - (6)(FA) = 0.

Based on equation #1 I assumed FA = (.40)(NA), so I used that to find NA = 80.769 lbs

Step 3
Using ∑Fy = 0, I found NA + NB - 150 = 0 to find NB = 69.230 lbs

Step 4
Fx = 0: ⇒ FA + FB - P = 0, which I found P = 60.

My book says the answer is 118.5 lbs, so I know I'm way off, but I'm not sure where exactly. I'm thinking I'm off somewhere in my FBD, but could be elsewhere too.

2qn5pty.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is meant by a "normal" force? Which way is the normal force when a point contacts flat or curved surface?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bkw2694
haruspex said:
What is meant by a "normal" force? Which way is the normal force when a point contacts flat or curved surface?

After thinking about it, I realize that it's force perpendicular to the surface, so I FA direction would need to be perpendicular to the corner it's sitting on? And would the friction force then be perpendicular to the normal force? If that's the case, how would I go about solving for the magnitude of FA and FB without knowing the angle?
 
bkw2694 said:
After thinking about it, I realize that it's force perpendicular to the surface, so I FA direction would need to be perpendicular to the corner it's sitting on? And would the friction force then be perpendicular to the normal force? If that's the case, how would I go about solving for the magnitude of FA and FB without knowing the angle?
Yes, except that it doesn't mean anything to say 'perpendicular to the corner'. You mean perpendicular to th surface, so friction is parallel to the pole.
You know the angle from the given lengths, but there's no point in calculating the angle as such. You will only need trig functions of the angle, and these can be derived directly from the lengths.
A tip: always work algebraically as far as possible, only plugging in numbers at the final step. It minimises rounding errors and maximises comprehensibility. It often reduces effort too, since some variables might cancel out.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bkw2694
haruspex said:
Yes, except that it doesn't mean anything to say 'perpendicular to the corner'. You mean perpendicular to th surface, so friction is parallel to the pole.
You know the angle from the given lengths, but there's no point in calculating the angle as such. You will only need trig functions of the angle, and these can be derived directly from the lengths.
A tip: always work algebraically as far as possible, only plugging in numbers at the final step. It minimises rounding errors and maximises comprehensibility. It often reduces effort too, since some variables might cancel out.

That got it, thanks again! I see what you mean about working algebraically seeing as I ended up with 118.66 due to rounding errors, but that's definitely the right method.
 

Similar threads

Replies
43
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
61
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
12K