How to get reactions from given structure

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the reactions of a structural system, specifically in the context of aerospace engineering. Participants explore various methods for analyzing the structure, including considerations of stability, constraints, and the use of finite element method (FEM) software.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the structure may be indeterminate and that assumptions need to be made regarding its constraints.
  • One participant points out that the structure appears unstable due to a lack of supports and emphasizes the importance of clearly labeling joints and dimensions.
  • Another participant proposes that if all joints are pinned to the ground, the structure could consist of multiple independent structures that may be statically indeterminate unless certain assumptions are made.
  • A participant mentions having resolved the issue using FEM software and considers removing certain pinned connections to simplify the analysis.
  • There is a discussion about the compatibility of the structure being both rigid and pinned, with differing opinions on whether this is feasible.
  • One participant offers to provide detailed calculations to assist in understanding the forces within the structure.
  • A later reply indicates that the reactions were successfully determined through hand calculations by simplifying the structure further.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the stability and constraints of the structure, with no consensus reached on the best approach to analyze it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the compatibility of certain structural characteristics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unclear definitions of constraints and supports, as well as the potential for misinterpretation of the structure's configuration based on the provided diagrams.

prelude1234
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Can anyone tell me how to find the reactions of this structure? If not by summing forces and moments, then how? I'm thinking it's indeterminate and assumptions have to be made.
 

Attachments

  • img015.jpg
    img015.jpg
    8.4 KB · Views: 538
Engineering news on Phys.org
prelude1234 said:
Can anyone tell me how to find the reactions of this structure? If not by summing forces and moments, then how? I'm thinking it's indeterminate and assumptions have to be made.

Welcome to the PF.

What is the context of the question? Is it for school?
 
No, this is a problem I'm having at work (aerospace) that I can't figure out.
 
prelude1234: Your structure is currently unstable, because it has no supports (also called constraints). A static structure must be constrained to its surroundings. In your diagram, please show the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Simple_cantilevers_%28comparison%29.svg" (supports, boundary conditions) for your structure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New image attached.
 

Attachments

  • img017.jpg
    img017.jpg
    12.3 KB · Views: 558
prelude1234: It currently seems your structure is pinned to ground at every joint, although we are not 100 % sure, because you did not use the standard (clear) constraint http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Simple_cantilevers_%28comparison%29.svg" for connections pinned to ground. Also, one normally labels joints with capital letters, so they can be identified. And dimensions are usually necessary.

If all of your joints are pinned to ground, then you have four independent structures; and I think each structure is statically indeterminate, unless you assume one of the two pins on each member is a roller (?).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For now i think I've figured it out with a FEM software.
I think i needed to remove the two lower pinned connections.
will try and verify through hand calcs. Thanks for the help...
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 477
Hi
If Joint 1 and 3 not rigid, then the structure is not overconstrained so you do not need to remove pins.
 
Hello prelude, what company do you work for?
 
  • #10
I am a contract Design Engineer with a major aerospace company. Why do you ask?
 
  • #11
Are other details in this company to the same standard?

I am bearing in mind that the application has potential public safety (airworthyness) involved.

You have stated that the structure is both rigid and pinned. This is incompatible.

nvn asked for a proper description of the problem, I do not see this in your second post.

Please re-present it using appropriate mechanics terms; it is impossible to determine anything from what you have presented so far.
 
  • #12
Studiot said:
Are other details in this company to the same standard?
Why do you assume it is a "detail"? For all you know, it might be the first sketch of a conceptual idea.

I am bearing in mind that the application has potential public safety (airworthyness) involved.
Aerospace companies design lots of items that have nothing to do airworthiness, or public safety.

You have stated that the structure is both rigid and pinned. This is incompatible.
There is nothing incompatible in having an (effectively) rigid structure pinned to something else (which may or may not be rigid). There may be good reasons for having an apparently redundant arrangement of pins - for example to deal with failure scenarios.

The way I interpreted the OP was that this was a "rigid block" connected to something else with several pins, with a load applied at the CG of the block. The lines were just to define the geometric location of the pins. (But hey, what do I know, I just work in the aerospace industry...)

But given the later posts, I'm less sure about what it really means.
 
  • #13
The 3 rods are also pinned to the plate as shown and this is what it looks like in the image.
 

Attachments

  • img018.jpg
    img018.jpg
    12.9 KB · Views: 468
  • #14
Alephzero, the floor ( or roof? ) is all yours.
 
  • #15
Hi
This (your last drawing) is exactly the system like your drawing in the FEM system. No overconstrains.
First you calculate the forces in rod 1-2 and rod 1-3 (take joint 3 as pinned and remove rod 3-4 and 3-5.), so you get the forces in joint 3.
Secound you can calulate forces in rod 3-4 and 3-5 . (Remove rod 1-2 and rod 1-3, joint 3 is now not pinned)

If you are unsure, i can drop for you the detailed calculations.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-2.jpg
    Untitled-2.jpg
    16.5 KB · Views: 541
Last edited:
  • #16
Thanks for the replies. I finally figured out the reactions by hand and simplifying the structure further, i.e. a simple dual triangle truss.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K