Problem with a "missing" force in x-direction....

  • Thread starter Thread starter ozmac
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving two rigid bodies connected by a pin, focusing on the forces acting in the x-direction and the calculations of those forces. Participants explore the implications of free body diagrams (F.B.D.s) and the relationships between the forces and torques acting on the bodies.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario with two rigid bodies, ABC and CDE, and calculates forces Fc and Fe based on external force T, expressing confusion over the missing force in the x-direction.
  • Another participant suggests that there may be a horizontal component to Fc that has not been considered.
  • A participant proposes designating forces as Cx and Cy to account for the components of force at joint C, especially if the geometry is not horizontal.
  • One participant describes attempting to solve the equations for forces and moments but finds the results to be unreasonable, indicating a potential oversight in their calculations.
  • Another participant agrees with the need to work with Cx and Cy and outlines a method for setting up equations based on free body diagrams, suggesting that the participant should have six equations for six unknowns.
  • Concerns are raised about the torque calculations and the role of angles in the problem, with one participant noting the need for clarity on the angle between CE and the horizontal.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct approach to the problem. There are multiple competing views on how to account for the forces and torques, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct calculations and assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the geometry of the system, the angles involved, and the assumptions made regarding the forces at joints B and C. There is also mention of the potential for missing components in the force calculations.

ozmac
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

So it's been a while since I've done F.B.D's, and what seems like a simple problem is causing me grief.

I have this scenario below, where there are two rigid bodies, first one is ABC which pivots at fixed point B.
This is connected with a pin to CDE, where D permits horizontal motion only, and where E is a wall which has stopped all rotation.

The distances are only shown roughly to show you the logic i was using to try solve it.
First I looked at ABC, and dedcided Fc would need to balance the external force "T", so I got Fc=25N
Then I looked at CDE, and decided that Fe would need to balance Fc, and I got Fe=71.4N.

But I think I've missied something, as if I sum the forces on CDE, I only have the one force in the X direction, i.e. Fe =71.4N.
D cannot impose any force in the x direciton (ignoring friction), so this tells me I didn't calculate the forces at join 'C' properly.

Can someone tell me what I've done wrong here? I seriously was looking at this all day and was just scratching my head.

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • fbd.jpg
    fbd.jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 445
Engineering news on Phys.org
There is a horizontal component to Fc that seems to be missing in your treatment ?
 
Hmmm ok, so if instead of Fc, I should designate a Cx and a Cy? then solve the two equations simultaneously?
For arguments sake, let's say that B and C are not horizontal, i.e. C is a little below B, meaning you can't ignore Cx when calculating moment about B.
 
Please guys I'm really stuck here.
Am I suppose to work with a Cx and Cy instead?
I tried that, and added a few equations, for example solving the x forces and y forces to be zero on ABC, and then I took a moment about D considering both bodies, (so forces E, Bx, By, T acting on the relevant normal distance to the joing at D), and was able to simultaneously solve all equations (MESSY!) but it came up with a ridiculous answer. It seems I'm still missing something. anyone?
 
ozmac said:
First I looked at ABC, and decided Fc would need to balance the external force "T", so I got Fc=25N
Agree. The torque around B due to T is compensated by the torque due to the vertical component CDE exercises on ABC.
ozmac said:
Then I looked at CDE, and decided that Fe would need to balance Fc, and I got Fe=71.4N.
Don't follow: I can understand that the wall may be smooth so that CDE can only exercise a horizontal force on E. So that gives a torque of 1.4 m x FE. And the vertical component of the force by ABC on C gives 4 m x FC. But ABC also exercises a horizontal force on C that we haven't established yet. To compensate the only horizontal force in CDE: FE.

By the way, it is strange that the lever arm should be 4 m if the distance CD is only √10 m
I can't pin it down exactly, either. But my instinct tells me the angle between CE and the horizontal plays a role. And that angle isn't given.

--
 
Yes, you should work with Cx and Cy. Start with FBD for each body separately. You will get Bx and By reactions in point B and Cx, Cy reactions in point C for left body. For right body, Cx and Cy should be of opposite directions than for the left one. D and E reactions are purely vertical and horizontal, respectively. Then write down two force and one torque equation for each body. For torque sumation, I would choose point B for left body and point C for right body. So, you have 6 equations and 6 unknown parameters (Bx, By, Cx, Cy, D and E). This should be solvable either by hand or with excel or something.

If I may ask, how many equations did you use and how did you know the answer is ridiculous ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K