Static Equilibrium and D'Alembert's Principle

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of D'Alembert's Principle in static equilibrium, emphasizing the virtual work principle expressed as δW = ∑i=1NFi·δri. It clarifies that for a system to be in equilibrium, the sum of the forces minus the mass times acceleration must equal zero, leading to the equation ∑i(Fi - miai)·δri = 0. The discussion also introduces generalized coordinates qi and their role in defining the position vectors of particles within the system, ultimately linking these concepts to the Lagrangian formulation of Classical Mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of D'Alembert's Principle
  • Familiarity with virtual work and virtual displacements
  • Knowledge of generalized coordinates in mechanics
  • Basic grasp of Newton's Second Law
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Lagrangian formulation of Classical Mechanics
  • Explore the concept of virtual work in mechanical systems
  • Learn about generalized coordinates and their applications
  • Investigate the relationship between forces of constraint and applied forces
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, mechanical engineering, and applied mathematics who are interested in the principles of static equilibrium and the foundations of Classical Mechanics.

Astrum
Messages
269
Reaction score
5
Virtual work principle states: δW = \sum^{N}_{i=1}\vec{F}_{i}\centerdot δ\vec{r}_{i}

And from this, we can see that if a system is to be in equilibrium we have

δW = (\sum^{N}_{i=1}\vec{F}_{1} \centerdot \frac{\partial \vec{r}_{1}}{\partial q_{1}})δq_{1} + \cdots = 0

Where did q come from? It's the rate of change of r with respect to a generalized coordinate?

\sum_{i} (\vec{F}_{i} - m_{i} \vec{a}_i ) \centerdot δ \vec{r}_{i} = 0

Fapplied-ma = F constraint

the applied force, subtracted by the total acceleration of the system, doted with the virtual displacement in the r direction equals zero? This would mean that the force applied would have to be equal to zero in the direction of the displacement. What does this equation actually tell us?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Astrum,

The \left\{ q_{i} \right\} are generalized coordinates defined for a system of N particles by the following set of equations

x_{1} = f_{1}(q_{1},...,q_{m},t)
x_{2} = f_{2}(q_{1},...,q_{m},t)
.
.
.
x_{3N} = f_{n}(q_{1},...,q_{m},t)

Where the \left\{ x_{i} \right\} are the components of the the position vectors of the particles that constitute your system. For example, you could choose \vec{r}_{1} = (x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}) and then continue selecting the components in the same fashion until you get to the position vector of the Nth particle, which would be \vec{r}_{N} = (x_{3N-2},x_{3N-1},x_{3N}). But remember that this is just a convention I've adopted to make things more clear to you at the moment. You could choose your own way of writing the vector's components, as long as they describe correctly the state of your system.

Therefore, for any \vec{r}_{j} if you use the well known result of the Chain Rule and write the "virtual differential" for that vector as

δ\vec{r}_{j} = \sum^{m}_{k=1}\frac{\partial \vec{r}_{j}}{\partial q_{k}}δq_{k}

Here I use the term "virtual differential" because, as you may have noticed, the partial derivative with respect to time is not present in the summation. That is because virtual displacements do not occur because of change in time; they are, in fact, imaginary displacements that you force the particles to undergo (but still respecting the constraints). That being said, you can substitute that result on the equation

δW = \sum^{N}_{i=1}\vec{F}_{i}\centerdot δ\vec{r}_{i}

and get the result

δW = \sum^{N}_{i=1}\vec{F}_{i} \centerdot ( \sum^{m}_{k=1}\frac{\partial \vec{r}_{i}}{\partial q_{k}}δq_{k} ) = (\sum^{N}_{i=1}\vec{F}_{i} \centerdot \frac{\partial \vec{r}_{i}}{\partial q_{1}})δq_{1} + \cdots + (\sum^{N}_{i=1}\vec{F}_{i} \centerdot \frac{\partial \vec{r}_{i}}{\partial q_{m}})δq_{m}

So, this is just a mathematical consequence of our definitions.As to the equation

\sum_{i} (\vec{F}_{i} - m_{i} \vec{a}_i ) \centerdot δ \vec{r}_{i} = 0

As I hope to show, that is just Newton's Second Law written in a different way. We can start by writing

\vec{F}_{i} = m_{i} \vec{a}_i or equivalently \vec{F}_{i} - m_{i} \vec{a}_i = \vec{0}

for a given particle i of your system, where \vec{F}_{i} is the total force applied to the ith particle. Now, we could multiply each of these equations by their respective virtual displacement, i.e., the virtual displacement associated with the ith particle. Therefore, we would obtain

( \vec{F}_{i} - m_{i} \vec{a}_i ) \centerdot δ \vec{r}_{i} = 0

Naturally we can also sum these equations for all particles, which would yield

\sum_{i} ( \vec{F}_{i} - m_{i} \vec{a}_i ) \centerdot δ \vec{r}_{i} = 0

Okay, I believe that now comes the trick that allows you to start the Lagrangian formulation of Classical Mechanics. The idea is that you can decompose the force acting on any particle into forces of Constraint and Applied forces (forces that are not caused by constraints). Let us write this decomposition as

\vec{F}_{i} = \vec{F}_{C; i} + \vec{F}_{A; i}

Substituting this result into our previous equation, we can rearrange the terms and write

\sum_{i} ( \vec{F}_{i} - m_{i} \vec{a}_i ) \centerdot δ \vec{r}_{i} = \sum_{i} ( \vec{F}_{C; i} ) \centerdot δ \vec{r}_{i} + \sum_{i} ( \vec{F}_{A; i} - m_{i} \vec{a}_i ) \centerdot δ \vec{r}_{i} = 0

But, the virtual displacements, by definition, are always orthogonal to the forces of constraint. Therefore, the summation on \vec{F}_{C; i} vanishes, and we finally get

\sum_{i} ( \vec{F}_{A; i} - m_{i} \vec{a}_i ) \centerdot δ \vec{r}_{i} = 0

Which is also the virtual work of the system.

I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but I hope it was helpful. ;)Zag
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Many thanks, you explained it very clearly!
 
In sci-fi when an author is talking about space travellers or describing the movement of galaxies they will say something like “movement in space only means anything in relation to another object”. Examples of this would be, a space ship moving away from earth at 100 km/s, or 2 galaxies moving towards each other at one light year per century. I think it would make it easier to describe movement in space if we had three axis that we all agree on and we used 0 km/s relative to the speed of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
43
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K