Using Macaulay's method of deflection on a cantilever beam

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around using Macaulay's method of deflection to analyze a cantilever beam. The original poster seeks to determine the slope of the beam at a specific distance from the wall and to calculate the deflection at the free end.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to clarify the sign convention for deflection and slope, expressing confusion over a negative slope result. Participants question the accuracy of the original poster's diagram and whether all forces and moments are correctly included in the equations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in clarifying the setup and assumptions, with some providing insights into the implications of the sign conventions used in the calculations. There is acknowledgment of potential errors in the original poster's approach, and guidance is being offered to help refine the understanding of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There are discrepancies noted between the original poster's hand-drawn diagram and the printed one, particularly regarding the distances to the loads. The discussion also touches on the need to incorporate reaction forces and torques from the support in the moment equation.

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: 1,707
  • o3OiR4T.jpg
    o3OiR4T.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 1,593
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: 806
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
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K