B Beam on an inclined plane

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter SeniorGara
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mechanics of a beam resting on two supports on an inclined plane. The original poster questions whether the lower support bears more load and presents equilibrium conditions for forces and moments. Responses clarify that the forces must be vertical, not diagonal, and that the system is statically indeterminate, meaning multiple load distributions are possible. Additionally, as the inclination angle increases, conditions for the beam to either slide or rotate are explored, with the requirement that the beam must be longer than depicted for sliding to occur. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the forces' directions and the implications of the beam's length relative to its supports.
SeniorGara
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I analyzed a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. My equations suggest equal reaction forces, but my intuition says otherwise. Is my reasoning correct? What are the conditions when the beam starts sliding or rotating?
Hello!

I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below.
rys1.webp

Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces:
$$
\begin{cases}
F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\
F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2}
\end{cases}.
$$
On the other hand, the equilibrium of moments relative to the center of mass can be written as:
$$
\frac{1}{2}LF_{r1}=\frac{1}{2}LF_{r2},
$$
which of course leads to the equation:
$$
F_{r1}=F_{r2}.
$$
As I mentioned above, I'm not sure that this result is correct. So my question is: is everything fine and my intuition wrong, or did I make some mistake somewhere?If everything is correct, I have a second question: as alpha increases, the system reaches a point where the beam either starts to move along the plane or begins to rotate. What should the conditions look like for the first and the second case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SeniorGara said:
If everything is correct, I have a second question: as alpha increases, the system reaches a point where the beam either starts to move along the plane or begins to rotate.
You show two fulcrums that carry the load. The load will not slide over a fulcrum, that needs to be a roller.
If FR1 and FR2 are due to weight, then they should be vertical, not diagonal.
 
SeniorGara said:
View attachment 365169
Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces:
$$
\begin{cases}
F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\
F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2}
\end{cases}.
$$
Note that ##\vec {F_{g\parallel}}## and ##\vec {F_{g\perp}}## are the wrong way round on your diagram. If you correct them, the above equations make sense.

SeniorGara said:
On the other hand, the equilibrium of moments relative to the center of mass can be written as:
$$
\frac{1}{2}LF_{r1}=\frac{1}{2}LF_{r2},
$$
which of course leads to the equation:
$$
F_{r1}=F_{r2}.
$$
That part is ok.

The problem is that you have considered only the special case where the beam is not in a state of tension or compression. In this special case ##F_{t1} = F_{t2}##. But there are other possibilities - this is what makes the system statically indeterminate (see @wrobel's post #3).

Minor edit.
 
SeniorGara said:
I have a second question: as alpha increases,
I assume alpha is the inclination angle.
SeniorGara said:
I have a second question: as alpha increases, the system reaches a point where the beam either starts to move along the plane or begins to rotate. What should the conditions look like for the first and the second case?
To slide along both supports the beam must be longer than shown. It will happen when alpha > atan(static friction coefficient).

But what exactly do you mean by "begin to rotate"? Are you talking about the end of the beam reaching the upper support and falling off? Or are you talking about alpha > 90° and the beam sticking to one of the supports?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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