Why the forces in the arch are carried to the ground

  • #1
205
101
¿Why the forces in the arch are carried to the ground?

Homework Statement


Hello, I want to know if my argue is right. The question is to justificate why the forces in the arch are carried to the ground.
I suppose a three voussoir's rounded arch. Just the arch, no structure supported. I call A to the keystone, B the springer down on the left, and C to the springer down on the right.
I place the origin of coordinates down in the middle.
This time I only care about vertical forces.


Homework Equations


First law of static equilibrium. I must prove that the vertical forces on every part of the system is zero: ∑FAy=0, ∑FBy=0, ∑Cy=0. And then add them to explain how the system works



The Attempt at a Solution


∑FAy = -mAg + FBAysenθ + FCAysenθ = 0
∑FBy = -mBg - FABysenθ + FBN = 0
∑FCy = -mCg - FACysenθ + FCN = 0

Where FBAysenθ is the vertical component of the force B exerts on A; -mAg is the weight of A; FBN is the normal force grounds exerts on B.

∑FAy + ∑FBy + ∑FCy = 0 = -mAg -mBg - mCg + FBN + FCN.

In conclusion, normal forces over B and C support all the weight.

¿Is it right?.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
907
88
Difficult to follow your argument without a diagram and without some definitions:

1) what is a three voussoir's rounded arch?
2) what is θ?

Of course normal force supports the weight but there is something more important that allows the weight to be carried over the span of the arch.
 
  • #3
205
101
Sorry, here is the drawing, hope it makes sense. It's an arch with a circular form, made with three stones, as I describe on the image. [itex]\theta[/itex] is the angle I was thinking about.

In the picture I've drawn the forces exerted on [itex]A[/itex], and also written [itex]\sum{F_{Ay}}[/itex], wich represents my notation for the vertical forces on [itex]A[/itex].
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • #4
907
88
Ok, if we assume there is negligible friction between the stone blocks then your first 3 questions look right. However, it's not the whole story. You also have to sum the forces in the "x" direction and sum the moments for each block

I don't know what you're trying to do with your 4th equation.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
205
101
Sorry, I didn't mention I considered no friction. And I didn't consider horizontal forces. I was only concerned about vertical forces.

The 4th equation intends to be the sum of all vertical forces exerted on the three stones, one by one. My intention is to figure out what happens on the system, on the whole arch, in relation to the vertical forces.

In this sum, some forces cancel each other:

[itex]+F_{CAy}\sin\theta-F_{ACy}\sin\theta=0[/itex] (Diagram below)

[itex]+F_{BAy}\sin\theta-F_{ABy}\sin\theta=0[/itex]

So the fourth equation means (from my point of view) that the weight of the arch should wind up at the bases of the arch.

As you can see, my approach is not complete, but I want to know if it justifies that the weight ends up at the bottom of both bases.

You suggest to calculate the sum of the moments for each block. Is there any torque?.
 

Attachments

  • #6
907
88
Your result that the weight of the arch is supported by the base is rather trivial. This is true of all structures regardless of whether it is an arch or not.

Even if you are not concerned with horizontal forces or moments, the structure is. Go ahead and sum the horizontal forces and the moments. It will be instructional.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
205
101
Let's go!

For the arch to stand up there must be a horizontal equilibrium:

[itex]\sum{F_{Ax}}=+F_{BA}\cos\theta-F_{CA}\cos\theta=0[/itex]

[itex]\sum{F_{Bx}}=-F_{AB}\cos\theta+f_{eB}=0[/itex]

[itex]\sum{F_{Cx}}=+F_{AC}\cos\theta-f_{eC}=0[/itex]

[itex]f_{eB}[/itex] and [itex]f_{eC}[/itex] means static friction.

And also a moment equilibrium I am not sure of. I've been searching on the internet, whith no results. I was going to try, but I prefer to ask before: ¿could you say which is the moment equilibrium for the blocks?.

Thanks!
 
  • #8
205
101
Wait, I've found information. Let's see if I can manage.
 
  • #9
907
88
OK, for the arch to be in equilibrium means that there must be a horizontal force: in this case you called it friction but any kind of horizontal reaction force to resist the thrust of the arch. This is what makes an arch an arch as opposed to just a big beam spanning over some distance.

As for the moment, draw a free body diagram of block C and take moments about some convenient point. You already found out the components of the reaction force at the base. Make an assumption about the location "x" of this reaction force say from point +3 and solve for "x".
 
  • #10
205
101
First I think that [itex]A[/itex] can be seen as a particle, so there is not any torque on it.

[itex]C[/itex] remains a mistery to me, as like as [itex]B[/itex]. I've tried to describe, and, intuition says me that normal force on [itex]C[/itex] restrains the twist horizontal forces create. Here is the diagram. I don't dare to suppose which is the resultant moment about any point.:confused:
 

Attachments

  • #11
907
88
Go ahead and dare.

You drew the normal force FCN in the middle of the block. In reality we don't know the exact location unless we equilibrate moments about some point.
 
  • #12
205
101
Fine!

I've drawn the resultant moment about the center of gravity. Here it is, in the diagram. How does it look like?

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • #13
907
88
I don't what you did here exactly. Looks like you made a number of assumptions about the locations of the reactions forces which are not necessarily true.

You might want to get hold of an engineering mechanics book to find out how to properly resolve forces into moments.
 
  • #14
205
101
Ok. I will try first to ask my physics teacher. The doubt doesn't belong to the subjects discussed, but I am really interested on it.

Thanks!
 
  • #15
205
101
Hi again, paisiello2 and everybody. I've tried hard, but no way. My teacher says me it doesn't belong to him to answer this question. Could anybody tell me how to resolve forces into equilibrated moments for C, taken as a free body?

Thanks!
 
  • #16
907
88
I gave you a suggestion in post #4 how to do it. However, it sounds like you might also need to review your teacher's notes and/or a text book to see in detail how to take moments for a body in equilibrium.
 
  • #17
205
101
Hello. I think I am closer to the solution. In the diagram, total torque is calculated respect the origin of coordenates, down in the middle of the span. How does it look like?

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • #18
907
88
It is not right.

The force F from block A should act at the top not at the bottom the way you are showing it.

Also see post #4 for location of normal force. The friction force should act at the same location as the normal force.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
205
101
Helo paisiello2:

Can I take as valid this analysis of the forces exerteted on voussoir [itex]C[/itex] just before calculate total torque?

1- The center of gravity is the center of simmetry;
2- The normal force exerted by the ground is opposite to the sum of [itex]\vec{F_y}_{AC}[/itex] and [itex]m_{C}\vec{g}[/itex], considerated as a system of parallel forces;
3- The normal force exerted by the [itex]A[/itex] voussoir on [itex]C[/itex] is as shown in diagram, as well as friction force.
 

Attachments

  • #20
907
88
Can I take as valid this analysis of the forces exerteted on voussoir [itex]C[/itex] just before calculate total torque?
The way you are showing the forces is unorthodox. However, I think it looks acceptable for the purposes of determining the location of the ground reaction force.

1- The center of gravity is the center of simmetry;
I am Not sure what you mean by this exactly. But it looks like you have drawn it correctly.

2- The normal force exerted by the ground is opposite to the sum of [itex]\vec{F_y}_{AC}[/itex] and [itex]m_{C}\vec{g}[/itex], considerated as a system of parallel forces;
Yes!

3- The normal force exerted by the [itex]A[/itex] voussoir on [itex]C[/itex] is as shown in diagram, as well as friction force.
it looks correct except for the unknown location of the ground reaction force and friction force.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
205
101
Hello. paisiello2, I thought you were on holidays. The analisys is not good. The center of gravity is not at the center of simmetry, its slightly outwards. I must integrate, and its a lot of work (I am on holidays). Any clue?
 
  • #22
907
88
Center of symmetry of what exactly? Of the C block?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #23
205
101
Center of symmetry of what exactly? Of the C block?
Yes, the C block. First of all I must beg you a pardon for my poor english, and because i write like everybody knew what am i thinking about.

The center of simmetry of the block C of the arch i am thinking about (three equal blocks' arch) is not the center of gravity(in this case when talk about center of gravity i am talking about center of mass, because i suppose uniform density).

I did not draw it in the diagram, sorry.
 
  • #24
205
101
paisiello2, I was wrong: the center of gravity is at the center of simmetry. I am still looking after the total torque. Your words made me think. Hope to have your help. It will be neccesary. Forgive my english once again. Please answer.
 
  • #25
907
88
Not sure that the center of gravity is at the center of symmetry (whatever that definition might be) but let's assume that we can approximate it to be so.

Please go back and re-read my post #20 regarding the corrections I noted. I think I explained the procedure clearly but let me know if you have any specific questions and I will try to help you if I can.
 

Related Threads on Why the forces in the arch are carried to the ground

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
998
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
219
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
9K
Top