Question on calculating Bending Moment for Beam

AI Thread Summary
Calculating the bending moment for the bridge is challenging without specific load data, which is currently not provided. The first bridge is identified as an arch, which does not experience bending moments due to its compression structure. The second bridge has a span of 98 meters and a maximum bending moment of 134,627 kN-m, but a simple reinforced concrete beam of that span would typically have a maximum moment of 345,744 kN-m. The presence of a prop at one-third of the span can alter the maximum moment, depending on the assumptions of beam continuity over the prop. Further context and specific load values are necessary for accurate calculations.
joeykeys
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I would like to know ,
given with the 2 attachments below,

are there any ways to find the bending moment (as circled) of the bridge?

or it is not possible to calculate simply because the "load" data is not given?

Several attempts have been tried but the circled data can not be reached.

Thanks a dozen for the help!
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-06-09 at 9.03.25 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-06-09 at 9.03.25 PM.png
    23.1 KB · Views: 715
  • 3.png
    3.png
    32.1 KB · Views: 681
Engineering news on Phys.org
These load values could be given as ultimate resistance values for the structure.
 
radou said:
These load values could be given as ultimate resistance values for the structure.


However, this "ultimate" value is not currently provided so it is not possible to calculate the bending moment as shown..

is it?
 
I think you need to provide further information about the context.

The first bridge is stated to be an arch. Arches have no bending moments, being pure compression structures.

The second bridge is stated to have a span of 98m and a (presumably) max bending moment of 134627 kN-m.

A simple RC beam with such a span would experience a max bending moment of 2*6*2400*10*98*98/8 = 345744 kN-m. This is nearly three times as much.

But the picture shows a prop at about 1/3 of the span. Such a prop would reduce the max moment and reposition it. The exact figure would depend upon the assumptions about continuity in the beam over the prop. If we assume the beam is fully continuous over the prop, can you calculate the approx moment? - it is possible to estimate if we can locate the prop along the 98 m overall span.
 
Studiot said:
I think you need to provide further information about the context.

The first bridge is stated to be an arch. Arches have no bending moments, being pure compression structures.

The second bridge is stated to have a span of 98m and a (presumably) max bending moment of 134627 kN-m.

A simple RC beam with such a span would experience a max bending moment of 2*6*2400*10*98*98/8 = 345744 kN-m. This is nearly three times as much.

But the picture shows a prop at about 1/3 of the span. Such a prop would reduce the max moment and reposition it. The exact figure would depend upon the assumptions about continuity in the beam over the prop. If we assume the beam is fully continuous over the prop, can you calculate the approx moment? - it is possible to estimate if we can locate the prop along the 98 m overall span.
Could you tell me which formula have you used for calculating the bending moment?

say is it: (b*d* ? * ? * span^2 ) /8 = bending moment

what does 2400 and 10 stand for?

Thanks again for the clarifacation.
 
Last edited:
reinforced concrete weighs about 2400 kg/cubic metre.
10 approximates the acceleration due to gravity to convert this to Newtons

the weight per metre run of beam is depth x width x1 x above density

the maximum moment in a simply supported beam is wL2/8

where L is the span length and w is the weight per metre run.

But you didn't answer my question so I can't help further
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top