How Do You Solve for I in a Series of Beam Deflection Equations?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mattaddis
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving for the variable I in a series of beam deflection equations. Participants explore the rearrangement of equations necessary to find the total deflection in a beam under specific boundary conditions, involving multiple formulas in series.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Matt seeks assistance in rearranging equations to solve for I, which is common throughout the equations related to beam deflection.
  • CompuChip suggests that since I appears in the denominator of each summand, it can be factored out of the equation.
  • Matt confirms that CompuChip's suggestion worked and led to the desired solution.
  • CompuChip expresses relief that there were no additional complexities regarding the components of I or dependencies on I in the equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to agree on the approach to factor I out of the equations, but there is an underlying uncertainty about potential complexities that could arise if I had additional dependencies or components.

mattaddis
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello there,

I need some help rearranging a combination of equations and was wondering if someone could help? I am attempting to find the sum of the deflection in a beam, but to do so for the boundary conditions require a total of four formulas in series.

I need to solve the attached equation for I, which is common throughout.

I hope someone can help.

Thanks in advance.

Matt
 

Attachments

  • equation.JPG
    equation.JPG
    9.3 KB · Views: 480
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the only place I see ##I## is in the denominator of each summand.
So can't you just factor it out?
$$\sum \delta = \frac{1}{24 E I} \left\{ \vphantom{\frac{W_1}{E I}} \cdots \right\}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
CompuChip,

Thanks for that. I feel a bit thick now. It worked and I got the desired solution.

Matt
 
No problem, we all make those mistakes.
I was just afraid that you were going to say "Oh, I forgot to mention that the I1,2,3 are the components of I", or "W depends on I" or something nasty like that :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K