Integrating pressure over area to get friction force

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the resistance force on a cylindrical cable being pulled through water-saturated sand. The team derived a formula based on stress components and implemented it in MATLAB, where they calculated the resistance force by averaging pressure over the cable's surface. However, one participant questioned the validity of this approach, advocating for direct integration of pressure over the cable's area. The consensus indicates that while numerical integration is valid, the average pressure method suffices due to the linear increase of pressure with depth.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fluid mechanics principles, particularly pressure and stress.
  • Familiarity with MATLAB for numerical computations.
  • Knowledge of friction coefficients and their application in force calculations.
  • Basic calculus, specifically integration techniques.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore MATLAB's numerical integration functions for more accurate force calculations.
  • Study fluid mechanics concepts related to pressure distribution in saturated soils.
  • Investigate the relationship between friction coefficients and material properties in granular media.
  • Learn about the implications of pressure depth profiles in geotechnical engineering applications.
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, researchers, and students involved in geotechnical engineering, fluid mechanics, or any field requiring the calculation of resistance forces in saturated soils.

Ortix
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
I'm doing some experiments where I need to calculate the resistance force on a cylindrical body (cable) when it's being pulled through water saturated sand

We derived formula from a theory which was originally based on a square body by using stress components. This way we know the pressure at any given depth on the cable.

UCTTdRC.png

This depicts a square body under sand saturated in water.
(It's in dutch but I'm sure we all can figure out what zand and kabel mean ;) )

The formula we derived (which is a bit too big to put here) was put into MATLAB and this is where it breaks down. 2 other guys from my team calculate the resistance force like so (quick sample code):

Code:
for theta = 0:0.1:360
    sigma_point(i) = sigma(theta); // sigma is the formula as a function of theta. Theta is converted to rads
    i = i+1;
end

force = sum(sigma_point)/length(sigma_point)*area_of_cable*coeff_fric

What they do is they calculate the pressure/stress on each point of the 2D-surface with steps of 0.1 degrees. They sum that and divide that by the amount of steps they have taken. Finally they multiply it by the area of the cable and the coefficient of friction which is tan(phi), also known as the angle of friction.

But I'm not buying this. It just doesn't make sense to me. Every fiber in my body is screaming that we should integrate over the area to get the force immediately. I tried it but I'm getting forces in ranges of kilo Newtons which doesn't make sense.

What I did was (i can't get formulas to work):

  1. integral from 0 to 2pi of sigma(theta)*radius*length*d_theta
  2. multiplied the above result with the coefficient of friction.
I hope I was clear enough because I'm confusing myself here as well.
My question is basically whether the first MATLAB approach is correct and if not what would be a correct way to calculate the friction force.

I'll gladly supply more information/explanation if necessary
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Why do you subtract densities of sand and water? I would expect a weighted average here.

Ortix said:
Every fiber in my body is screaming that we should integrate over the area to get the force immediately.
That's what they are doing, numerically. It is not necessary, however. Pressure increases linearly with depth. The average pressure is just the pressure at the middle of the cable - assuming it does not move upwards or downwards through the sand too fast.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
11K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K