Solving Static Equilibrium at Point A: 15 kip/ft & 11 ft

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Earle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equilibrium
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a static equilibrium problem involving a rigid body subjected to a uniformly distributed load. Participants are attempting to determine the reacting moment and force at a pinned connection point A for a beam that is 11 feet long and carries a load of 15 kip/ft.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how to start solving the problem and mentions difficulty finding similar examples.
  • Another participant suggests that the sum of forces must equal zero, proposing a negative force at point A of -165 kips based on their calculations.
  • A different participant agrees with the force calculation but questions the moment calculation, stating that the distributed load should be converted to a concentrated load at its centroid.
  • One participant calculates the maximum moment using the formula Mmax = wL²/2 and arrives at a value of 10,890,000 lb-in, but expresses concern about the correctness of their unit conversions.
  • Another participant points out that while the formula used is valid, it may not be appropriate for all scenarios, emphasizing the importance of understanding the underlying principles rather than relying solely on formulas.
  • A later reply clarifies how to find the centroid of the distributed load, explaining that it is located at the midpoint for a uniformly distributed load across the entire beam.
  • One participant acknowledges their previous confusion and thanks others for their assistance, indicating a realization that they may have overcomplicated the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to sum forces and moments to zero for equilibrium, but there are differing opinions on the methods and formulas used to calculate the moment and force at point A. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to take.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of potential errors in unit conversions and the appropriateness of certain formulas for specific loading scenarios. Participants have not reached a consensus on the best method for calculating the moment.

Jim_Earle
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I am really stuck on this and am looking for any type of direction anyone can give. I have an 11 foot long rigid body that supports a 15 kip/ft uniformly distributed load. I need to find the reacting moment in (lb-in) and force in (lb) at point A.

Point a is at the pined connection (see diagram below)

|
| w=15 kip/ft
| vvvvvvvvvvvvv
A ------------------
| L=11 feet
|
|
|
 
Physics news on Phys.org
what are you confused about? What have you done so far?
 
I'm confused on where to start. I can't find any example of a problem that resembles this situation anywhere.
 
This is what seems odd. What I think I have to do seems way to simple which is why I think I am heading in the wrong direction.

For my force I am thinking the sum of my forces need to equal 0, thus my force at point A will be negative 165 kips. right?

For my moment I think I have to take the weight times the length and divide by 2 or use WL/8

so it would be 165 kips X 11 ft / 8 = 226.875 kips

I realize i need to get these in the proper units but am I correct in my approach?
 
If the system is in equilibrium, joint A cannot be pinned - it must be fixed.

Therefore, you are tackling Ay correctly - that it is the length of the distributed load * load distribution. In short, yes - 165K is correct.

For the MA, though, you need to convert the distributed load to a concentrated load at its centroid. I have no idea where the 8 comes from in your equation.

Also, don't forget to solve for Ax. Of course, that should be very easy.
 
so this is what I came up with as I am running out of time.
w = 15 kip/ft X 1000 lb/kip = 15,000 lb/ft


Mmax = wL²/ 2 = 15,000 lb/ft (11ft x 11ft) / 2 = 907,500 lb-ft X 12 in/ft = 10,890,000 lb-in

Thus my Mmax =10,890,000 lb-in

For my forces I assume the sum of all forces must equal 0

∑Fx = 0
∑Fy = 0
∑M = 0

So if I have a positive applied force of 165,000 lb (15 kip x 11 ft = 165 kip X 1,000 lbs / kip = 165,000 lb)

My reacting force at my point A should be -165,000 lb

Is this correct?
 
Well, yes - but you did it in a weird sort of way for the Moment.
 
thats what my formula tells me to do. I have a cantilevered beam with a fixed connection @ point A, and it caries a uniformly distributed load of 15 kips/ ft for 11 ft.

my formula that I found for this situation says my Mmax = wL2/2
 
I think i screwed up my conversions though. does my answer seem high. I times by 12 and I am thinking I should have divided by 12.

Out of curiosity what's another way I could have solved for the moment?
 
  • #10
Since you converted things from K to lbs, and from ft to in, your answers are going to be high. But, as long as the units cancel correctly (which they did) - it'll be fine.

And using the formula you had, while it works, is simply a bad way of doing things. It seems like a formula for this particular type of problem was given, but the "why" wasn't taught. That equation wouldn't work, had the distributed load been over only the first 9 feet of the beam.

In short, formulas are nice, but aren't always appropriate.
 
  • #11
Ah, just saw the last line of your last post...

You'd have to find the centroid of the distributed load. In this case, as the load is equally distributed over the entire beam, it's just the length of the beam/2 => 5.5ft. Were the load just over the first 9 feet, then 4.5ft. However, if the load didn't start until 3 feet from point A - so that the load was over the last 8ft - then the centroid for the load would be located at 3ft + 8ft/2 => 7ft. And then it's simply the total applied load * the centroid location.
 
  • #12
I see what you are saying. I have had problems such as that and I did have to use a different approach for that problem. Thanks for your help and thanks for looking at my problem. I think I was making it way harder than what I needed to and was really second guessing myself :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K