Optimizing structure for toppling

AI Thread Summary
A user is designing a standing frame for disabled children and seeks to optimize it against toppling under a force applied at the top. They are considering changing dimensions within specific limitations, including minimum length, maximum width, and weight of the plate. The discussion highlights that while different structural designs may affect overall stability, toppling stability remains consistent as long as height and width are unchanged. The user proposes a formula to assess toppling stability, suggesting that the vector sum of the frame's weight and the applied force must pass through the base to prevent toppling. The conversation emphasizes the importance of maintaining the center of mass and structural integrity in the design process.
Harsh188
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi! everyone...

I'm a building a standing frame for disabled children, the structure in elemental form is shown in picture.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B60ALttRvwKmdzRGc0pGWlN5Z3c/edit?usp=sharing
link to picture - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B60ALttRvwKmdzRGc0pGWlN5Z3c/edit?usp=sharing

Now, I want to optimize the structure for toppling, let's say a force, F is acting on the top most part, fig(a).
I can change dimensions but there are certain limitations like minimum length of the frame, maximum width and maximum weight of the plate. So, how do I optimize all these things keeping in condition that frame doesn't topple??

Also, can I do better optimization by changing structure as shown in fig(b), and fig(c)? if yes, how?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The vector sum of frame weight and F must go though the frame's base, to prevent toppling.

Your a,b,c variants have different structural stability, but the same toppling stability, as long h & W as the same. Unless the weight of the frame or its center of mass position change significantly.
 
A.T. said:
The vector sum of frame weight and F must go though the frame's base, to prevent toppling.

Your a,b,c variants have different structural stability, but the same toppling stability, as long h & W as the same. Unless the weight of the frame or its center of mass position change significantly.

hmm... toppling stability actually makes sense.
So, can I just say, FcosA*h=mg*W/2? (neglecting the mass of vertical bar)
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top