How Do You Calculate the Force on Screws in a Rotating Cylindrical Vessel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nazarian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pressure Wall
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the force on screws in a rotating cylindrical vessel, the pressure inside the cylinder must be understood as a scalar, but the resultant force on the screws is a vector. The integration should consider the pressure acting on the surface area of the cylinder, with the force components aligned along the screw axes. When pressure is constant, the resultant force can be expressed as 2PHR in the direction of the screws, accounting for symmetry in the force distribution. Gravity may also need to be considered, depending on the specific conditions of the problem. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurate calculations of forces in such systems.
nazarian
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The problem is the following: we have 2 half's of a cylinder and they are put together using 6 screws, forming a full cylinder. Inside there is water and we are asked to calculate the force on the screws when the cylinder rotates with constant angular velocity Ω. Using the equations of hydrostatics I calculated the pressure as a function of z and r, but here comes the part I cannot yet solve; If I want to calculate te resultant force over some half do I have to integrate \oint_S p or \oint_S \hat{n} \dot \hat{i}? (being S the surface of the semi cylinder). I know the pressure is a scalar but i still have doubts about it. Do I project the force over \hat{i} ? (taking x as the symmetric axis)

Thanks, excuse me if my english is not correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm going to assume that the screw axes are perpendicular to the plane of join of the two half cylinders. Further, that each half cylinder is sufficiently rigid that you do not have to worry about forces that tend to distort (flatten) it. So all you should care about are the forces in the direction of the screw axes.
Does that help you?
 
Correct! but do I have to decompose the pressure which I believe is orthogonal to the surface, i.e. is in the \hat{\rho} direction, to the cartesian directions and then integrate? I mean do I have to think the pressure as a vector field (I was told it was a scalar) ?

Let me use a simpler question;
Asume the pressure is constant, H is the height, R is the radius, \hat{i} is the direction perpendicular to de plane of the screws. The resultant force on one half is then \vec{F}=\pi PHR \hat{i} or 2PHR \hat{i}?. The 2 comes from integrating sin\theta between 0 and \pi, while the first expression comes from integrating without sin\theta
 
The pressure is scalar, but the force at each element of area is a vector. Just take the component of that force in the screw axis direction. Components in other directions will cancel by symmetry. So in the simplified question, it's 2, not pi.
Btw, are you supposed to worry about gravity too?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top