×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Can this be solved by statics?

Can this be solved by statics?

Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
I am tying myself up in knots with this one. I have a system like the picture to assess. There are a variety of geometric configurations so i was planning to plug it all into a spreadsheet, but I am not happy that I am programming it right. So, I modelled one scenario and I cannot mirror the results by hand. Nodes 1-3 is 1.57m, 3-4 is 1.83m and 3-4 vertical is 2m. The rotated roller at 4 represents a slope, so it will provide a restraint but would slip down the slope on its own - member 2 is there to stop this happening.

I can't help feel i'm making a meal of this, but something is wrong somewhere!



RE: Can this be solved by statics?

4 unknowns, three equations. So it's indeterminate, and can't be solved by statics

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
I was thinking that too, but you can change the pin at 1 for an X-axis only restraint without changing the results of the computer analysis, leaving three unknowns - Hz at 1 and Vt at 3 and 4? (Have only just done this since the OP by the way!)

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Starting at Node 4 and summing the forces: 2 unknowns (force in Member 2 and the reaction force at Support 4) and 2 equations (sum of Fx = 0 and sum of Fy = 0) lets you solve for the force in Member 2 and the reaction force at Support 4
Then summing the forces at Node 3: 2 unknowns (force in Member 1 and the reaction force at Support 3) and 2 equations (sum of Fx = 0 and sum of Fy = 0) lets you solve for the force in Member 1 and the reaction force at Support 3

As I do not know the geometry of your members and supports, I cannot solve it exactly but if I assume that Member 2 and Support 4 are both angled at 45 degrees, i get a force of 11.12 at Node 1 which is only 1.6% different than the value in the image you posted.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Are member 1 and 2 different members? I assume it is one continuous member, just separated into two finite elements.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

i read node4 reaction as normal to member 2, in which case you can calc the load in member 2

at node 3, the reaction is normal to element 1, which is a component of the load in member 2

at node 1, the reaction is the other component of the load in member 2.

i think your solution works.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
1 and 2 are two different members. They will be connected at Node 3.

In my time zone its late so I will go through the responses you all have very kindly given me in the morning and respond.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

If it's a hinge connection between 1 and 2, you have six unknowns and six equations so you're fine. If it's a moment connection you're back to one more unknown than equation

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
Correct, its a hinge. And now I am definitely off to bed...

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

For the given loading applied at the support, member 2 only has an axial load, so there is no rotation at Node 3, so it doesn't make any difference if the member is continuous or not. The force in member 1 is equal to the horizontal component of the force in member 2.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Assuming infinitely stiff supports that's the case. It's still statically indeterminate though, it's just easy to visually apply deflection compatibility with only axial forces in the member

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
Ok, I am not to proud to admit I am being an idiot. I have attached how I would go about this and perhaps someone can point out the obvious!

I have drawn out the geometry in the top half. At the bottom, I have started with N4 and immediately get it wrong - I know it wrong because I have a vertical reaction equal to the applied load. This can't be right as then if I have a vertical at N3 I lose equilibrium. Surely my triangle of forces at N4 is wrong but I can't see it any other way as this arrangement gives the applied force as a resultant (if you see what I mean).

I think i'd better go back to school after this one...

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

First, sum moments about point 3 to solve for the angled reaction. Then use sum of forces in x to solve F2 and sum of forces in Y to solve the reaction at 3. Alternatively, method of nodes works because it's a truss, I don't actually see the error in your sketch, you have 16.4 kN calculated vs 16.2 kN from software

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
True, perhaps I am a bit hasty in calling it wrong. It is after all 99% of the software analysis which is more than close enough! Also when I work out F2 using 16.4 x cos 47.54 i get 11.08kN which again is 99%.

My 'problem' with it is that I think the vertical component of reaction at 4 is 22.24kN as drawn on my sketch which does not match the output and cannot satisfy equilibrium if there is a vertical reaction at N3 - is this where I am fundamentally wrong with something?

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Yes. The vertical component of reaction 4 is smaller than reaction 4 - sum of squares of the vertical and horizontal reaction at 4 should equal the reaction

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
OK, so I thought I had cracked it. Attached is my work through of the example posted previous - the results come out pretty close. To be extra sure I ran a second check and I got different answers to 'the machine'! I will put the screen grab from Robot in the next post as I can only add one file per post. I also did a 3050x2000 (not attached) and that was even further away!

I should add that I am not blindly assuming the computer is right here, and I don't need to get results that match 100%, but I need to be right!

The help offered so far is really appreciated.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Are you including member self weight in the computer analysis? That will prevent results from matching. Otherwise your methodology is fine, just make sure you're doing the geometry/trig correctly.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

well, IMO, well done for not believing the computer, for working it out for yourself, and for checking your own work.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

btw, you have implicitly assumed that the members are rods (axial load only, no bending). if the members are beams then the problem becomes redundant (as noted above) 'cause there can be an internal moment at node 3, balanced by a couple at nodes 1 and 3; the problem becomes a beam on three supports.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
Self weight is off! I'm glad that at least I have the analysis principle right now. Being out by a kN is not a big deal but i'd be worried if I was dealing with forces an order of magnitude greater.

And the appreciation for not believing the computer is appreciated!

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

i suspect your "error" is round off

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Quote:

btw, you have implicitly assumed that the members are rods (axial load only, no bending). if the members are beams then the problem becomes redundant (as noted above) 'cause there can be an internal moment at node 3, balanced by a couple at nodes 1 and 3; the problem becomes a beam on three supports.

No, because as noted above, assuming rigid supports, the force in the left hand beam is horizontal, so there will be no moment in either beam,

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

not the way i see it ... the LH end looks like an anchor point to me, fully pinned, not like the roller at node 3.

if a moement was applied at node 3, the structure could support it.

so it follows that if the members can support bending, and if the joint at node 3 allows it, then an internal moment would develop at node 3.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Indeterminate if beam members, one too many unknowns and can get a vertical Rx at left pin due to deformation.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

OP said later on that it's a hinge between the two members and no internal bending moment can exist at the hinge between the two members. Therefore, it is determinate and easily solved by statics.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

rb1957 - OK, for it to be completely statically determinant the horizontal member would have to be completely rigid, as well as the supports, but for any realistic member stiffness the horizontal displacement at the bottom of the sloping member will be very small, and the moment will be negligible.

I agree with the calculated force in the sloping member of 16.41 kN, and so does Strand7 (both with a hinge at the bottom, and a moment connection).

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Then yes, takes away an unknown and I didn't see the hinge comment.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

I thought I'd have a look at how much difference a moment connection at Node 3 makes (see attached spreadsheet).

The conclusions are:

Including the moment at Node 3 makes less than 0.1% difference to the reaction values.
Spreadsheet calculations agree with FEA results (Strand7) almost exactly.
Doing the calculation on a spreadsheet isn't that hard (once you have got it set up).

The remaining question is why the FEA results found in the OP are significantly different. At the moment I can't see why.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
Doug,

I have only just noticed your reply and thought I would acknowledge your effort in writing the spreadsheet to check it out for me - really appreciated, thanks. I've downloaded it and will be giving it a once over, I've wanted to pick up a few tips on programming the stiffness method so it will be really helpful.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

IH980 - Glad to help. Solving simple problems on a spreadsheet is a great way to get a better understanding of what the big compiled programs are doing under the hood, which is one of the main reasons I do it.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

What is the software you are using?

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
www.medeek.com

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

(OP)
The software used in the screenshots I posted is Robot Structural Analysis from Autodesk.

RE: Can this be solved by statics?

Just split the force into its vector components perpendicular to the roller and the member. Wash-rinse-repeat at the next node.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources