(Vector statics) Effect of a pulley on free body diagram?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the impact of a pulley on the free body diagram of a beam supporting a weight. When a 1-m bar fixed to a wall holds a 100 N weight, the tension in the rope through the pulley remains constant on both sides. The wall exerts a force equal to the tension (T) in the opposite direction, maintaining equilibrium. The shear and moment values in the beam remain unchanged, but the presence of the pulley introduces an additional axial force in the beam. Understanding these forces is crucial for analyzing the system's stability and load distribution.
dmk90
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
For example, a 1-m bar fixed to a wall holding a weight of 100 N, like this:

f88b0724bf.jpg


How will the free body diagram of the second case different from the first?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Axial load In beam (compression).
 
PhanthomJay said:
Axial load In beam (compression).
Can you explain what the magnitude of that force would be, and why?
 
dmk90 said:
Can you explain what the magnitude of that force would be, and why?
As always, use free body diagrams and the equilibrium equations. The tension in a rope passing through an ideal pulley is the same on both sides of the pulley. So the force of the wall on the rope must have a magnitude of T, acting left. By summing external forces of the system in the x direction = 0, the horizontal force of the wall on the beam must also be T, acting right, since that it is the only place where another external force can exist. The shear and moment values in the beam are the same as in the first case.

Alternatively, you can draw a free body diagram of the pulley to identify the direction of the tension forces down and left, then a free body diagram of the beam without the pulley must show the same horizontal and vertical forces acting on it down and left. This gives the same result for beam forces and moments, but now their is an additional axial force in the beam, equal to _??__ N.
 
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