Optimizing Truss Design for Pipeline Support: Initial Analysis Methods

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jonathanjc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Support
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on redesigning a truss structure for pipeline support and the initial analysis methods involved. The user is questioning the results of their force equilibrium calculations, specifically a perpendicular force of approximately 93 kN, which seems inconsistent with the axial load. They share their free body diagram (FBD) and express confusion over the forces involved, particularly the presumed force Fc. Other participants suggest considering additional factors like moments at the fixed point and the weight of the pipe for a more accurate analysis. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in force calculations and the potential for errors in initial assumptions.
Jonathanjc
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I am attempting to redesign a truss structure for a pipeline support. I would like to find out how best to go about the initial analysis. I have attached a drawing of the pipeline in question and labelled the axial force I am working with. The pipeline is at 60° and the shaded area shows the kind of reaction the pipe will have under this kind of force. I have initially performed force equilibrium to try and find the force perpendicular to the pipe that the pipe support will need to manage. However, its given me a suspicious answer of around 93isH kN - more than the axial load and I am not convinced.

Could anyone give some advice. Whether equilibrium of forces is the wrong or right way to go for this type of problem.

Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
How do u get 93?? How is ur FBD?
 
Hi,

I have attached my FBD. Fc was presumed to be 81kN which worked out and Fb came out to be -93.533kN. So the force arrow according to the FBD would flip back on its self. To me this does not look correct.

Maybe this is the wrong method to use for this problem. Or maybe I missing something. Any thoughts?
 

Attachments

  • photo.JPG
    photo.JPG
    18.8 KB · Views: 466
Hi.

Im not sure if i understand the Fc. Anyway the simplets way i think i would look at is this way(se attachement).
Else i would think you would need to know the moment at the fixed point of the pipe and length and own weight and so on the more stuff could be calculated.

Hope it helped you :)

Might be errors kinda late :)
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    14.3 KB · Views: 465
Last edited:
I was using Fc as the pipe from the initial point Fa. I guess it wasn't really necessary to do it that way.

Thanks for your input it has helped.
:)
 
Glad it helped you. :)
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...

Similar threads

Back
Top