Moment reaction with rotation and offset CG

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a model involving a body in motion with an offset center of gravity (CG) and the calculation of moment reactions. The user initially verified their model with hand calculations but encountered significant discrepancies when adjusting the CG. They noted that while reaction forces changed as expected, their hand-calculated moment was 55% off from the program's prediction. The user is seeking clarification on whether additional reaction cross products are needed and how to account for the added rotation due to the offset CG. They express concern about their approach to the problem and are looking for guidance on accurately calculating the moment reactions.
abrooski
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey folks,

I created and verified a model with hand calculations, and decided to re-use my same logic.. Which now is giving me false numbers. Was wondering if you guys could help me out.

Setup/Verification (See attached Reaction_Forces picture):
  • Body in motion being held down by straps.
  • Uniform Center of Gravity (CG) in model.
  • Reaction forces (in red) are found in top 4 corners, x,y,z for each.
  • Moment Force is verified by summing cross product of each force reaction (x,y,z) and its relative locations from body CG. Resulting moment is 0.5% off my program approximation. Great!
    • [reaction 1 cross product] + [R2 crossP] + [R3 crossP] + [R4 crossP] = One axis moment reaction. Perfect.
Problem (See attached NEW_CG):
  • Same body in motion. CG is now offset from exact middle of body. New CG.
  • Reaction forces adjust accordingly as expected. Nice.
  • Moment is predicted by program with a sizeable addition in one of the 3 axis.. Roughly equivalent total though.
  • Hand calculated Moment, using same method as above with cross product of reaction forces and relative locations from NEW CG, is completely wrong. 55% wrong.
    • Are there more than 4 reaction cross products now?
Is there something I'm not taking into account? The body is now rotating slightly, I understand there will be 2 axis forces for moment now.. But my hand calculations are so far off I feel like I'm missing something.

Any help would be appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • Reaction_Forces.jpg
    Reaction_Forces.jpg
    53.6 KB · Views: 545
  • New_CG.jpg
    New_CG.jpg
    43.4 KB · Views: 492
Physics news on Phys.org
I presume the box is standing on something? I cannot see an upward reaction force.
 
I apologize, yes, there is a normal force reaction and the box is sliding across a frictionless floor.
 
Did I post this in the correct forum? I haven't been able to figure this out yet.. Approaching the problem correctly is my greatest concern. I don't know how to account for the added rotation of the box do to the offset center of gravity. Anybody have any advice for me?
 
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