Free Body Diagrams: Easily Analysing Photos & Sketches

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analysis of free body diagrams (FBD) in the context of a mechanical system involving a ball and members. Participants explore methods for determining forces and reactions at various points, particularly focusing on the calculations and assumptions necessary for accurate analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in extracting important information from a sketch to create a free body diagram and proposes analyzing the system as a whole to find moments about point C.
  • Another participant agrees that reactions at points E and D must be equal and upward, suggesting the use of moment summation to find these reactions, while questioning the weight of the ball.
  • A participant mentions resolving forces parallel and perpendicular to the plane and seeks a mathematical method to find the distance between point C and the ball's contact point.
  • There is a discussion about the calculation of forces, with one participant arriving at a force of 381N but questioning its correctness against a solutions manual.
  • Another participant confirms the reactions are 400N each and discusses the resultant forces at point C, including a vertical and horizontal component.
  • One participant raises a question about the absence of a parallel component at the contact point between the ball and the member, suggesting that if one member were to disappear, the ball would roll down the slope.
  • Another participant argues that there is no parallel force at the contact point, attributing the normal force to the ball's weight and the horizontal reactions balancing out.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the calculation of vertical reactions and the approach of summing forces and moments. However, there is disagreement regarding the presence of parallel forces at the contact point and the interpretation of forces at point C, indicating multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about certain calculations and the assumptions made regarding the forces acting on the system, particularly at point C and the contact point with the ball. There are unresolved questions about the nature of forces in the system and the implications of symmetry.

lazypast
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Hi,

When looking at a photo or sketch, I find it hard to take out the important bits and turn it into a freebody diagram. I am doing this question (pic attached).

Im quite unsure how to even begin. I've though of a few ways to start analysing it.

The first way analyses AD as a whole. And essentially all the forces would produce a moment about C.

the bottom pic shows the forces (the ball exerts 800N) and I would calculate the reactions in the supports. I would be tempted to find the reactions then put them back into the analysis mentioned above (moments about C). The only prob is, I am not sure its as easy as saying ƩF(y)=0. ∴Reaction(D) = Reaction(E) = -400N.

Are there any pointers? I do have the solutions manual however Id just like a nudge in the right direction before taking a peek. Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • IMG00042-20121106-1330.jpg
    IMG00042-20121106-1330.jpg
    10.5 KB · Views: 442
  • IMG00041-20121106-1300.jpg
    IMG00041-20121106-1300.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 449
Physics news on Phys.org
When you look as the system as a whole, yes, the reactions at E and D must be vertical upward and equal, at 400 N each, assuming the ball weighs 800 N (does it?). You can sum moments about E = 0 to find the upward reaction at D, and then use your sum of forces = 0 in y direction to find the upward reaction at E, to get this result. You should also sum forces in the x direction to solve for any horizontal force at E, if there is one (is there?).
Then when you try to find the other forces at joints A, B, and C, you can break apart one of the members as you have done (but show it as a diagonal as it it exists, don't flatten it out), and sum moments about C to get B, etc. However, if the ball weighs 800 N, the vertical force from the sphere is not 800 N in this FBD..what should it be?
 
Thanks for the guidance.
I see the reactions are 400N = R(e) = R(d) and there are no horizontal reactions. What I have been doing is resolving parallel and perpendicular to the plane.

I will try your method of taking moments about C. I would love to see a mathmatical way of finding out the distance between C and the point of contact of the ball and member. I've forgotton too much maths to do it myself, so I employed some CAD help (pic attached).

The distance is 0.86m, so now I will resolve the forces perpendicular to the member and take moments about C, i.e.

(1)400cos55 + (0.86)800cos55 = (2)F_{AB}sin55

Rearranging F_{AB} = 230+395/(2sin55) = 381N

This is not the answer in the back of the book, I must be missing somthing.
 

Attachments

  • BallC.jpg
    BallC.jpg
    14.2 KB · Views: 497
lazypast said:
Thanks for the guidance.
I see the reactions are 400N = R(e) = R(d) and there are no horizontal reactions.
Good.
What I have been doing is resolving parallel and perpendicular to the plane.
OK
I will try your method of taking moments about C. I would love to see a mathmatical way of finding out the distance between C and the point of contact of the ball and member. I've forgotton too much maths to do it myself, so I employed some CAD help (pic attached).

The distance is 0.86m,
you're a lot better at CAD than I, so I'll take your word that 0.86 m is correct, since I'm also pretty bad at geometry
so now I will resolve the forces perpendicular to the member and take moments about C, i.e.

(1)400cos55 + (0.86)800cos55 = (2)F_{AB}sin55
Almost correct, but not quite...that middle term (0.86)800cos55 is incorrect...its that 800 number that is wrong...part of the ball's weight is on the other member...so that 800 number should instead be ___?___. Otherwise, this is real good.
 
Thanks for the guidance. I now have the answer. Due to symmetry and resolving vertically I arrived at 800=2Rcos55 where R is the perpendicular force exerted on 1 member and equals 697N.

Although it's now solved I am still curious about 1 thing, C. We can either take moments again or sum the perpendicular forces and see there is a force at C of about 53N. Futhermore summing parallel forces to the member, we get a parallel component of C at about 37N. The resultant is 65N at an angle 36degrees from the vertical (Pointing down).

When I started to analyse this system I assumed I would have to know about C. Could anyone provide detail on point C. The forces seem minimal compared to the outermost points of the member, is that because the moment is far smaller? When analysing systems like this in industry, is point C never a point of particular interest? (i.e. we're interested in the outermost points).

Once again thanks
 
lazypast said:
Thanks for the guidance. I now have the answer. Due to symmetry and resolving vertically I arrived at 800=2Rcos55 where R is the perpendicular force exerted on 1 member and equals 697N.

Although it's now solved I am still curious about 1 thing, C. We can either take moments again or sum the perpendicular forces and see there is a force at C of about 53N. Futhermore summing parallel forces to the member, we get a parallel component of C at about 37N. The resultant is 65N at an angle 36degrees from the vertical (Pointing down).
I think you should find that the resultant at C is horizontal.
When I started to analyse this system I assumed I would have to know about C. Could anyone provide detail on point C. The forces seem minimal compared to the outermost points of the member, is that because the moment is far smaller? When analysing systems like this in industry, is point C never a point of particular interest? (i.e. we're interested in the outermost points).

Once again thanks
Connection design at C is governed by the forces at C.
 
I've been picking things apart. There is 1 question: Why is there no parallel component at the point of contact between the ball and the member? There are parallel forces at all other points on the member.

If there were a parallel force, the resultant at C is not horizontal! But I would guess there is a parallel force because if one member were to disappear the ball would accelerate down the slope of the other member.

I can only assume since we look at the whole picture, we can see the horizontal reactions at C and B balances the horizontal component at the ball contact (i.e. the resultant at the ball contact is 697N and the vertical is 400N, so the horizontal ≈570N.)

If the vertical is 400N, surely the parallel at the ball contact is 400cos35 = 328N.

Thanks
 
lazypast said:
I've been picking things apart. There is 1 question: Why is there no parallel component at the point of contact between the ball and the member?
Any parallel force at that point would have to be from friction, but the ball would rest there just fine even if the member was frictionless. There is only a Normal force there perp. to the member, with a mag. of 697 N, and with vert. comp. of 400 N and horiz. comp. of 570 N.
If there were a parallel force, the resultant at C is not horizontal! But I would guess there is a parallel force because if one member were to disappear the ball would accelerate down the slope of the other member.
there is none.
I can only assume since we look at the whole picture, we can see the horizontal reactions at C and B balances the horizontal component at the ball contact (i.e. the resultant at the ball contact is 697N and the vertical is 400N, so the horizontal ≈570N.)
yes
If the vertical is 400N, surely the parallel at the ball contact is 400cos35 = 328N.

Thanks
The parallel comp. of the 400 N vert. force plus the parallel comp. of the 570 N horiz. force must sum to 0...thus, there is no parallel force.
Bottom line is that the force at C is 65 N in a horizontal direction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K