Tension on Rope Ends: Solving the Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter mecheng2121
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rope Tension
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the tension in a rope with balls at each end, subjected to a distributed load. The user is concerned that as the angle (Q) at the ends becomes very small due to slack, the calculated tension on each ball end becomes excessively high, potentially reaching 5,730 lbs for a 100 lb load. Responses highlight that real-world factors like rope stretch and material flexibility must be considered, as they affect tension calculations. The consensus suggests that while theoretical calculations may indicate high tension, practical applications involve material properties that prevent such extreme values. Ultimately, the user is encouraged to factor in these considerations for a more realistic design of the ball ends.
mecheng2121
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,

My first post and I'm hoping someone can help/verify a problem I have. I've got a rope with a ball fastened to each end. The balls are secured inside a c-channel. There is a small amount of slack in the rope such that the balls are loose inside the channel (the rope is slightly longer than the distance between the channels).

I then want to apply a distributed load, Fw, across the rope. I can calculate the curavature of the rope and resulting angle, Q, of the rope at the ends from the geometry of the application (I'm going to assume no stretching of the rope or deflection in the channels).

I want to calculate the tension applied to the ball ends. What I come up with, based on my FBD, is the tension, T, on each ball end is equal to the distributed load, Fw / 2 sin(Q).

The problem, which I can't get my mind to accept, is that as angle Q gets very small (if I allow very little slack in the rope), the tension on the ball ends gets very large... much more than the input, distributed load Fw.

Then, if I play a little mind game & take it a step further by replacing the rope with say, a very stiff steel I-beam fastened to a wall at the ends, Q would be infitesimally small resulting in an incredibly large tension T pulling on the wall... how could a building ever be constructed to hold against an extreme tension even with a small distributed load?

Any comments would be greatly appreciated... Am I on the right track? Do I have to simply accept that my ball ends need to be ready to handle a ton of tension? Does my mind game make sense and if so, how can that be? Thanks!
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
I think that since you have defined the problem in terms of a flexible rope, what you're seeing is, there must always be some 'droop' in the line (such that your angle theta is never quite equal to zero). If you define your problem in terms of a rigid beam laying between the two channels, you'd see all of the beam's weight carried by the channels (with the weight or force directed straight down, vertically). Just my 2 cents.
 
So... if I have a distributed load of say, 100 lbs and there is just enough slack to allow the rope to sag 0.50 degrees at the ends, then I have to make sure the ball ends can each withstand 5,730 lbs?!?
 
Hi mecheng, welcome to the board,
mecheng2121 said:
So... if I have a distributed load of say, 100 lbs and there is just enough slack to allow the rope to sag 0.50 degrees at the ends, then I have to make sure the ball ends can each withstand 5,730 lbs?!?
I think you're assuming here that the rope doesn't stretch, right? So what happens as the rope stretches?

mecheng2121 said:
Then, if I play a little mind game & take it a step further by replacing the rope with say, a very stiff steel I-beam fastened to a wall at the ends, Q would be infitesimally small resulting in an incredibly large tension T pulling on the wall... how could a building ever be constructed to hold against an extreme tension even with a small distributed load?
Consider also what happens to the I-beam and the walls that support it when a load is applied. The beam begins to bow, so the ends come closer together, but the walls can also shift. There is no such thing as infinitely rigid. You can think of I-beams in buildings a bit like rubber. They will bend and stretch depending on their modulus of elasticity. That's true of strings, cables, chains or any other material.
 
Thanks,
I realize I'm assuming some things that in real-life might not be factual... like no stretch in the rope (say a steel cable instead), or rigid channels & walls. But I need to design the ball ends such that they can withstand the 100 lb distributed load.

The problem I'm having is before I actually started to do the calculations, I was thinking the ball ends needed to hold up to roughly 50 lbs ea. with some safety factor. However, I was assonished to find that they may actually need to be strong enough to hold 5,730 lbs ea... if my calculations and FBD are correct.

So I guess what I'm asking is - in general - would most people here agree with my FBD and calculations that show that with only the 100 lb load, each ball end will actually have to be strong enough to hold up to 5,730 lbs (assuming a very small amount of slack - 0.50 degrees).

Just kind of hard for me to believe I guess... but thanks again.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top