Transfer of forces from a pulley to a beam

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the transfer of forces from a pulley to a beam and the calculation of the resulting moment. Two methods are proposed for calculating the moment: Method 1 uses a global system approach with the equation M = force * distance, while Method 2 isolates the beam and calculates the forces acting between the pulley and the beam. The conclusion reached is that both methods yield the same moment, as the radius of the pulley does not affect the reaction moment force at the end of the beam.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of static equilibrium principles
  • Familiarity with moment calculations in mechanics
  • Knowledge of free body diagrams
  • Basic trigonometry for analyzing angles and distances
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of static equilibrium in mechanical systems
  • Learn about free body diagram techniques for complex systems
  • Explore the relationship between forces and moments in pulley systems
  • Investigate the effects of friction in pulley and beam interactions
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mechanical engineering, physics enthusiasts, and anyone involved in structural analysis or mechanics of materials.

MartinLoland
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am trying to understand how forces transfer from a wheel / pulley onto a beam, and then calculating the resulting moment. The image describe the problem.

trinser.png

The rope is in tension with force "S", the wheel/pulley can rotate freely without any friction.

Homework Equations


[/B]
M = force*distance

The Attempt at a Solution


Method 1: If we look at the global system it should be ok to use the force*distance to find the resulting moment M.

Method 2: If we first calculate the forces acting between the pulley and the beam and then isolate the beam we should be able to find the moment.

I thought method two would be right because the pulley don't transfer moment, but then again we should also be able to look at it as a global system. Which one is correct and why doesn't the other one work? Thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you shown that the two methods are really different ?
Do you let the two S act at the correct point in method 2 ?
 
BvU said:
Have you shown that the two methods are really different ?
Do you let the two S act at the correct point in method 2 ?
In theory the two methods shouldn't produce any differences. But if we look at the pulley as a isolated system and find the x and y forces acting in the bearing we are only left with M, but since the two S are producing the same moment with equal distance r my understanding is that M=0 in the bearing. Since the beam and pulley are connected in the frictionless bearing a can only see that the x and y component described in the picture are transferred to the beam.

When you say
Do you let the two S act at the correct point in method 2 ?
Hmm, I can't see how I should set the forces differently
 
MartinLoland said:
Hmm, I can't see how I should set the forces differently
Simple case ##\theta = \pi/2##. You let the horizontal S act at the height of the beam instead of (idem + r) and the vertical S at the end of the beam instead of (idem + r) -- but I do see the additional moments cancel, so perhaps that's what you mean ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MartinLoland
BvU said:
but I do see the additional moments cancel, so perhaps that's what you mean ?
Yes, if you use method 2 the moment cancels out in the pulley so you are left with a smaller M than what you get with method 1. Is it wrong to do a global analysis as in method 1 when you have freely rotating wheels in that system?

Another way of stating the problem: Is the reaction moment force M at the end of the beam dependent on the radius of the pulley r?
 
MartinLoland said:
Is the reaction moment force M at the end of the beam dependent on the radius of the pulley r?
So my reasoning yields answer: no.

Now we want to show that method 1 gives the same moment as method 2 ...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MartinLoland
BvU said:
So my reasoning yields answer: no.

Now we want to show that method 1 gives the same moment as method 2 ...
Hmm, I have no idea why my earlier results yielded different numbers. Some times all you need is someone looking over your shoulder, thank you for your patience!
 
MartinLoland said:
Hmm, I have no idea why my earlier results yielded different numbers
Different numbers or different-looking equations?
Your two equations involve l, r, c and theta, but from the geometry there is a relationship between those variables, so it is not apparent whether they are actually the same. Figure out the relationship and substitute for c in method 1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MartinLoland
haruspex said:
Different numbers or different-looking equations?
Your two equations involve l, r, c and theta, but from the geometry there is a relationship between those variables, so it is not apparent whether they are actually the same. Figure out the relationship and substitute for c in method 1.
Yes thanks. When I worked through it earlier I got different numbers. But working it out once more I found that the r cancels out when using method 1.
So it all makes sense now :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
868
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
14K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K