Using Macaulay's method of deflection on a cantilever beam

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on applying Macaulay's method of deflection to determine the slope and deflection of a cantilever beam. The participants clarify the correct interpretation of moment calculations, specifically addressing the moment equation M = -RX + W[X-a] and the significance of reaction forces. Key insights include the importance of correctly identifying the direction of torques and ensuring accurate substitution of values for x in the equations. The conversation concludes with a consensus on the correct approach to calculating deflection and slope using the established method.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Macaulay's method of deflection
  • Familiarity with beam mechanics and moment calculations
  • Knowledge of torque and reaction forces in structural analysis
  • Ability to integrate equations for slope and deflection
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Macaulay's method in different beam configurations
  • Learn about calculating deflections using the double integration method
  • Explore the effects of varying load types on beam deflection
  • Investigate the role of boundary conditions in beam analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in civil engineering, structural engineering, and mechanics, particularly those focused on beam analysis and deflection calculations.

Kyle Grayston
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


AUAELH9.jpg

i) Determine the slope of the beam 1m from the wall.
ii) Calculate the deflection at the free end of the beam.

Homework Equations



Macauly's method of deflection: M = -RX + W[X-a]
Integrate once for slope
Integrate twice for deflection

The Attempt at a Solution



o3OiR4T.jpg
[/B]
It is my understanding that a positive deflection is downwards and a negative deflection is upwards.

I am getting a negative answer for the slope which would indicate an upwards slope?

When I use my initial equation to calculate the moment before integrating, I get the correct moment value (27.84kNm) so I feel like that is correct, I am worried that maybe some of the values in my equation should be negative which would change the value of my constants A and B.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • AUAELH9.jpg
    AUAELH9.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 1,685
  • o3OiR4T.jpg
    o3OiR4T.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 1,581
Physics news on Phys.org
Your hand drawn diagram does not match the printed one. You have 0.5m to the first load where the printed diagram has 1m.

Also, shouldn't there be a torque and vertical force from the support in the expression for M?
 
haruspex said:
Your hand drawn diagram does not match the printed one. You have 0.5m to the first load where the printed diagram has 1m.

Also, shouldn't there be a torque and vertical force from the support in the expression for M?

Hi, sorry I've drawn the beam out mirrored as I was trying to compare it to a similar one done in class. My diagram is shown with the fixed end on the right.

There is 19.2kN reaction force at the fixed end, I am just not sure whether this is incorporated into the equation.
 
Kyle Grayston said:
My diagram is shown with the fixed end on the right.
Ok, so you are measuring x from the free end, but the question asks for the slope 1m from the wall, and you have substituted x=1.
Also, viewed from the free end, your loads will have clockwise moments, so should have negative torques. That is why you got a negative slope.
 
Ah yes, I see where I have put the incorrect x value in, thanks!

As for the negative slope, is this what you mean by having a negative slope when looking at the free end?

woEfKLz.jpg
 

Attachments

  • woEfKLz.jpg
    woEfKLz.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 796
Kyle Grayston said:
As for the negative slope,
Ignore what I wrote before... not saying it was wrong, but here's a simpler way..
A downward force left of x leads to an anticlockwise torque at x and makes a negative contribution to y". So if you are taking torques as positive clockwise then your M=... equations are correct but y"=-kM.
 
Ah I see what you're saying, that makes more sense. Thanks very much for your help, I really appreciate it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K