Finding Average Normal Stress in Rod

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating average normal stress in a rod using Newton's 2nd Law. The user questions the treatment of forces in the problem, specifically why a single 40 kN force is considered for delta P while delta EF uses an F/2 approach. The user proposes an alternative solution involving specific formulas for force calculations based on rod dimensions and material properties, ultimately arriving at a displacement of 0.0874 mm and forces of 38,380 N and 20,810 N, which do not match the book's answer.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's 2nd Law
  • Knowledge of stress and strain calculations
  • Familiarity with basic mechanics of materials
  • Ability to perform calculations involving cross-sectional areas and material properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Review calculations for average normal stress in rods
  • Study the application of Newton's 2nd Law in static equilibrium problems
  • Explore the derivation of force equations for different cross-sectional areas
  • Investigate discrepancies in textbook solutions and common pitfalls in mechanics problems
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for engineering students, mechanics instructors, and professionals in structural engineering who are focused on understanding stress analysis in materials.

rugerts
Messages
153
Reaction score
11

Homework Statement


Here's a snapshot of the problem:
upload_2019-3-1_22-57-46.png


Homework Equations


upload_2019-3-1_22-58-42.png

+ Newton's 2nd Law.

The Attempt at a Solution


upload_2019-3-1_23-0-0.png

upload_2019-3-1_23-0-34.png

My question is: why does the delta P term have only a single 40 kN force considered, whereas for delta EF there's an F/2?
Thanks for your time.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-3-1_22-57-46.png
    upload_2019-3-1_22-57-46.png
    25.8 KB · Views: 1,173
  • upload_2019-3-1_22-58-42.png
    upload_2019-3-1_22-58-42.png
    2.1 KB · Views: 799
  • upload_2019-3-1_23-0-0.png
    upload_2019-3-1_23-0-0.png
    16 KB · Views: 1,024
  • upload_2019-3-1_23-0-34.png
    upload_2019-3-1_23-0-34.png
    27.8 KB · Views: 629
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't figure out what they did, but this is definitely not how I would have solved this problem. I would have written $$F=\frac{\frac{\pi}{4}(0.03^2)(101)(10^9)}{300}\delta_p$$and $$F_{EF}=\frac{\frac{\pi}{4}(0.04^2)(193)(10^9)}{450}\delta_p$$where ##\delta_p## in mm is the displacement that the plate shifts to the left. Then I would have substituted for F and ##F_{EF}## into Eqn. 1 to solve for ##\delta_p##.

This gives ##\delta_p=0.0874\ mm##, ##F_{EF}=38380 N##, and ##F=20810 N##. So the answer given in your book doesn't agree with this.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K