What is the distance of the resultant from point A on the beam?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the resultant force and its distance from point A on a beam under a distributed load defined by the polynomial q(x) = x^2 - 2x - 4. The resultant force has been correctly calculated as 9.1877, which is derived from integrating the load function. To determine the position of the resultant, the moment around point A is calculated, resulting in a moment of -4.1546. This moment is then equated to the moment caused by the resultant force, leading to a distance of approximately 2.0350 from point A. The initial calculation of distance as (1/2*(43/10) is acknowledged as close but not accurate.
tigertan
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
hi there,


I'm getting very very confused about distributed loads.

I am trying to figure out the resultant force of a distributed load on a beam. The function I've been given for q(x) is a polynomial (below x=0).

I have figured out the resultant for my function q(x)=x2-2x-4. I believe it is 9.1877 (positive being in the vertical direction). Length = 43/10

To find the distance of the resultant from point A on the beam, I have worked it out to be (1/2*(43/10).

I don't feel that the distance I have worked out it right and I'm not 100 percent sure about the resultant force either. Could someone please set me off in the right direction?

Thanks in advance.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi,

The force of 9.1877 is correctly calculated. It is the integral of the load.

Now to find the position of the resultant, we first calculate the moment around the point x = 0.
M = int (x * q(x)) dx between x = 0 and x = 4.3
= int (x^3 - 2x^2 - 4x) dx between x = 0 and x = 4.3
= - 4.1546
(negative because load works vertically)
This has to be equal to the moment caused by the resultant:
M = Fd
with d the distance from the point x = 0.
Hence
d = M/F = 2.0350

This is close to your (1/2*(43/10), but not exactly the same. How did you get there?
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top