Mechanics of materials torque on solid shaft

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving torque problems related to a solid shaft fixed at both ends. The user is attempting to calculate the torques at the ends of the shaft using equilibrium equations but is confused by the results, particularly the discrepancy between their calculated torque of 645 N-m and the applied torque of 300 N-m. Clarification is provided that both ends being fixed means there are unknown torque reactions that must be accounted for to maintain static equilibrium. The conversation emphasizes the importance of using compatibility equations to ensure the torsional deformation is zero across the shaft segments. Ultimately, the user is encouraged to verify their calculations and ensure all variables are clearly defined to resolve their confusion.
MrJoseBravo
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


http://prntscr.com/7rtrep
http://prntscr.com/7rts95

Homework Equations


theta = TL/GJ
t(max)= Tc/J

The Attempt at a Solution


The two questions i have are rather similar so i put them up at the same time, i hope that's okay.
For the first one ( the first link) i started by

angle of twist = 0 , thus TbcLbc + TcdLcd + TdaLda = 0 (1)

so then i have to find some way to relate those torques to the reactions at ends A and B. I assumed Tb to be positive (in tension) and worked my way up the shaft drawing free body diagrams.

my results : (2)
Tb = -Tbc
Tcd = -Tb + 800
Tad = -Tb+300

then i plugged equations 2 into 1 and solved for Tb.
my result was 645N-m which doesn't make sense to me since the net torque experienced by the member should be 300N-m.
I may have some conceptual information messed up in my head, any insight would be wonderful!

for the second link, id only like to know if I am thinking about it correctly.
I can find the reactions at the fixed supports, and create equations that relate them to the torques along different segments of the bar. Would i then do this

tmax=Tac(c)/J

?

thank you in advance for any insight!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If it's not accelerating wouldn't the net torque (sum of all four torques) be zero?
 
  • Like
Likes MrJoseBravo
Even though these two problems are very similar, PF prefers that you post one problem per HW thread. It's easier for people replying to your question to keep answers straight.

I think that the problem you are having in understanding these two questions relates to the figures used to illustrate the two shafts. In problem 7rtrep, it's not really clear, but both ends of the shaft at A and B are fixed, so there are two unknown torque reactions to be determined at those points, which will keep the shaft in static equilibrium. I didn't realize that both ends of the shaft were fixed in this problem until I looked at the illustration in the other problem.
 
  • Like
Likes MrJoseBravo
CWatters said:
If it's not accelerating wouldn't the net torque (sum of all four torques) be zero?

This does make sense. What i meant by the net torque being 300N-m is the torque applied.

So if the torque experienced at fixed end B is 645N-m, and the applied torque is 300, then it follows that the torque at A must be something such that the net torque equals zero.
Thus 345 N-m.
is this logic sound ?
 
This is a statically indeterminate problem. It's fixed at both ends. You need a compatibility equation that sets the torsional deformation of all three sections to zero.
 
SteamKing said:
Even though these two problems are very similar, PF prefers that you post one problem per HW thread. It's easier for people replying to your question to keep answers straight.

I think that the problem you are having in understanding these two questions relates to the figures used to illustrate the two shafts. In problem 7rtrep, it's not really clear, but both ends of the shaft at A and B are fixed, so there are two unknown torque reactions to be determined at those points, which will keep the shaft in static equilibrium. I didn't realize that both ends of the shaft were fixed in this problem until I looked at the illustration in the other problem.

sorry about that i will keep it in mind for next time!
I do think that these illustrations are hard to understand but i did gather that there are two unknown torques since its fixed on both ends. I guess (if my reply above is sound) that i wasnt able to bridge the last part of the problem, that the net torque equals zero.
I likely wasnt clear but i did equilibrium and used the compatibility equations giving me the results above. ( i used the angle of twist formulas for all three segments)
then the GJ terms in the denominators canceled out and i was left with equation (1) above.
 
MrJoseBravo said:
This does make sense. What i meant by the net torque being 300N-m is the torque applied.

So if the torque experienced at fixed end B is 645N-m, and the applied torque is 300, then it follows that the torque at A must be something such that the net torque equals zero.
Thus 345 N-m.
is this logic sound ?
Yes, but how did you get 645?
I don't understand your equations in the OP, since you don't define any of the variables.
Without ever having studied this area, it seems to me that the share each end gets for an applied torque is inversely proportional to its distance from that torque. So if a rod length L has a torque T applied at distance X from and A then end A's share is T(1/X)/(1/X+1/(L-X))=T(1-X/L). Applying that to each applied torque here and summng gives 345Nm at A.
 
MrJoseBravo said:
This does make sense. What i meant by the net torque being 300N-m is the torque applied.

So if the torque experienced at fixed end B is 645N-m, and the applied torque is 300, then it follows that the torque at A must be something such that the net torque equals zero.
Thus 345 N-m.
is this logic sound ?
What happens if you calculate Ta the same way you did Tb . Then see if they sum to zero?
 
  • Like
Likes MrJoseBravo
Back
Top