Understanding horizontal shear in beam with vertical load

AI Thread Summary
In an I-beam, the correct representation of shear flow is crucial for accurately calculating net shear, especially when additional horizontal forces are applied. The discussion highlights that while both images satisfy static equilibrium, the left image correctly shows the direction of horizontal shear, which is vital for determining shear in the upper flange. The concept of shear flow is particularly relevant for thin-walled cross-sections, where shear forces vary across the flanges. Understanding why vertical loads induce horizontal shear involves visualizing the flanges as thin plates that experience varying shear forces due to axial loads. Ultimately, the choice of shear flow direction significantly impacts the calculations for net shear in structural analysis.
davidwinth
Messages
103
Reaction score
8
TL;DR Summary
I am trying to understand both why a horizontal shear is shown in the flange of a beam with a vertical load and how the directions are defined.
In an I-beam, the shear flow is usually shown drawn as on the left, not as drawn on the right. I do not understand why. I do understand:
  1. The total horizontal shear force must be zero, consistent with statics.This is satisfied in both images.
  2. The vertical direction matches the direction of the external load.
  3. There is a longitudinal horizontal shear (in to or out of the plane of the cross section). That, I understand.
My fundamental question is, Why is the image on the left correct and the image on the right incorrect, (or why do we say there is left/right shear at all)? Statics would also be satisfied with no left/right shear.

It matters because, when accounting for the direct shear due to an additional horizontal force (pushing to the right), we will subtract the shears on the upper right hand side of the left I-beam to get the net. If we were to use the right I-beam, we'd have to add the shears to get the net. So the net shear said to exist in the upper right flange of the I-beam depends vitally on the direction assigned to the shear flow, and yet I see no physical reason to favor of one or the other convention.

1. How can I understand why a vertical force produces horizontal (left/right) shear and
2. Why the direction is chosen as it is?

F15i8.png
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
davidwinth said:
Thanks. That is one of the pages I looked at when trying to understand. The problem is that both beams I show are consistent with the "two useful hints" or "guidelines" the author lists. There is no explanation regarding either of my questions.
Keep in mind that this shear flow concept was developed for dealing with thin wall cross-sections.
I may be wrong, but this is the way in which I see it:

If you can visualize the flanges of the beam as thin plates, you can see that:
1) The difference of the shear forces in the y-direction are negligible.
2) Is the area of both plates that are connecting to the web the ones "feeling" the pulling and pushing of the axial forces induced by the moments.
3) The shear force next to the edges of a thin plate is close to zero in increase toward the central area of the plate, as the following link shows.

Please, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bending_of_plates

Therefore, the arrows represent how the flow begins and the free edges of the top flange (just like it starts at the top edge of a rectangular cross-section loaded from the top), increases in magnitude until reaching a max at the neutral line of the beam, to decrease again until reaching the free edges of the bottom flange.
Note that the shear flow for a beam loaded by negative moment would be represented in the opposite direction.

Please, see:
https://mathalino.com/reviewer/mech...erials/relation-between-load-shear-and-moment

https://www.ae.msstate.edu/tupas/SA2/chA14.7_text.html
A14.7_ex1_figure5.gif
 
Last edited:
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