Resultant moment of beam fixed at one end

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the calculation of the resultant moment for a beam fixed at one end with a load applied at the opposite end. The initial interpretation suggests that the resultant moment is calculated as sum(M) = Ma + FL, where Ma is the reaction moment, F is the applied force, and L is the distance from the load to the fixed end. However, clarification indicates that the resultant moment about point A is actually +FL, while the fixed end moment is -FL, leading to a net moment of zero for equilibrium. It is advised to avoid using the term "resultant" in this context and to treat moments and forces separately. Understanding these distinctions is essential for accurate analysis in structural mechanics.
SubZer0
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Clarification of terminology
Hi all,

I just wanted to get some clarification on 'resultant moment' when calculated in 2D for a beam which is fixed at one end (point A), and has a load applied at the opposite end (point B). My interpretation of 'resultant moment' would be calculated as sum(M) = Ma + FL, where Ma is the reaction moment at the fixed end of the beam, F is the external force applied and L is the perpendicular distance between the applied load and point A. So in my understanding, the resultant moment about point A would simply be -FL, or the opposite of the sum of moments about point A.

Is this is a correct assumption?

Thanks!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Actually, thinking more about this, the resultant moment would simply be the sum of the moments about point A, and would not include the reaction moment at the fixed end. So above, the resultant moment would simply be sum(M)=FL.
 
SubZer0 said:
Summary: Clarification of terminology

Hi all,

I just wanted to get some clarification on 'resultant moment' when calculated in 2D for a beam which is fixed at one end (point A), and has a load applied at the opposite end (point B). My interpretation of 'resultant moment' would be calculated as sum(M) = Ma + FL, where Ma is the reaction moment at the fixed end of the beam, F is the external force applied and L is the perpendicular distance between the applied load and point A. So in my understanding, the resultant moment about point A would simply be -FL, or the opposite of the sum of moments about point A.

Is this is a correct assumption?

Thanks!
It depends on what you mean by resultant moment. The resultant moment of the applied force about A is +FL. The resultant fixed end moment is -FL. The resultant moment on the beam as a whole is 0, for equilibrium. The term resultant is usually used when there is a distributed load and you want to find its resultant acting as a point load. Otherwise it may be best to stay away from that term and consider moments and forces separately in the x and y directions.
 
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...
Back
Top