Principle of virtual work for continuous systems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of the principle of virtual work (PVW) for continuous structures versus discrete systems, as stated by Hjelmstad in 'Fundamentals of Structural Mechanics.' Hjelmstad claims that PVW applies only to discrete systems with a finite number of particles, suggesting that approximations like Ritz' method are necessary for continuous systems. Participants express confusion over this assertion, emphasizing the utility of PVW in analyzing continuous beams and trusses in structural mechanics. The conversation highlights the distinction between discrete systems and continuous structures, noting that as the number of particles increases, a discrete system approaches a continuous one. Overall, the thread underscores the complexity of applying PVW in different contexts within structural analysis.
jkpennings
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I always thought that the principle of virtual work (PVW) is valid for all structures, including continuous structures (like bars, beams, plates, etc.). However, in his book 'Fundamentals of Structural Mechanics', Hjelmstad states that the PVW is only valid for discrete systems with N particles, and that for using the PVW for continuous systems, an approximation like Ritz' method should be used, see attachment. I actually do not understand what Hjelmstad means in this text. Can you please help? I'm really confused right now...
 

Attachments

  • Hjelmstad.JPG
    Hjelmstad.JPG
    116.9 KB · Views: 478
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you in grad school or working on a complex project? Regardless ,you have every right to be confused, because Mr or Ms Hjelmstad's book on ' Fundamentals' is far beyond being fundamental, at least with thIs statement you have attached. Maybe he or she is just showing off. PVW is a valuable tool in analyzing indeterminate continuous beams and trusses. So maybe someone else can help you, but from my perspective, it is the basics of structural mechanics that are most important.
IMHO.
 
I am just a curious grad student in Applied Mechanics:) Do you understand why the PVW is not valid for continuous structures according to Hjelmstad?
 
I'm still trying to figure out what is a discrete system with N particles? Sounds like the author took a page out of Wikipedia. I took all sorts of advanced courses in grad school, none of which I remember, but all of which in some way was useful. If you are going on to a PhD level or Research, perhaps you need to investigate it more. I am wondering why you chose Applied Mechanics instead of Mechanical or Structural Engineering?
 
See attachment, this is what I mean by a discrete system with N particles :) The upper cantilever is a continuous structure, while the bottom cantiliver is a discrete system with N = 4 particles, in which the actual continuous stiffness is concentrated in those 4 nodes. If the number of N goes to infinity, the system becomes continuous.
 

Attachments

  • DEM.JPG
    DEM.JPG
    22.3 KB · Views: 429
jkpennings said:
See attachment, this is what I mean by a discrete system wit N particles :) The upper cantilever is a continuous structure, while the bottom cantiliver is a discrete system with N = 4 particles, in which the actual continuous stiffness is concentrated in those 4 nodes. If the number of N goes to infinity, the system becomes continuous.
Oh, it looks like your into some sort of dynamic vibration analysis, which is not my area of expertise. Any dynamic analyses I have done have often employed the use of dynamically 'equivalent' static loads, such as impact and earthquake loads where dynamic loads are adjusted to reflect for example static dead loads that are multiplied by a 'g' factor depending on natural frequency and with a lowered overload factor. For static analysis of determinate and indeterminate continuous systems ,PVW is a valuable means of analysis for determining deflections and reaction loads. Maybe it's no good for vibratory loading. Sorry I can't help further.
 
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