Greg, apologies if I seemed curt earlier, I assure you it was not directed at you...the part to you was simply trying to make myself a bit more clear...So it sort of sounds like we're cooking now...By your last post I gather that you've arrived at a similar conclusion as to one of my only...
with all due respect, i find it a bit condescending that one assumes I have not searched the forum before posting...secondly, the terminology I'm using is straight from Roark, I dont understand why one would even respond and make such comments when they haven't grasped the scope of the problem...
The width is essentially ignored in this analysis, so please disregard it, since it is a very wide short beam...only the moment arm (c) and the depth of the flange of the beam (a) is taken into consideration...attached is the accompanying table. Now it does offer different values for a different...
"So I think he is saying that Km being a function of c/b is constant when c/b is constant."
Initially I thought the same thing, but Roark's formula is not relating the moment arm to the width as b is infinite in a very wide flange. Thus c/b becomes near zero. There seems to be some confusion...
Thanks for the response Greg, if it's all the same, I'd rather not get into specifics as to why that assumption was made...so let's take it another way, assume c=a, signifying the moment arm is always at the edge of the flange...still c/a would be the same. My question is in regards to the...
A Colleague of mine asked me a question and I couldn't answer it, so I was hoping someone else could. It's in reference to Roark's 7th edition Beams of Greater Width Analysis (Section 8.11) in which he discusses the stresses on very short wide cantilever beams. It mentions the beam bending...
