Using method of sections to solve for truss systems

In summary, the conversation discusses the use of a 3 meter distance in calculating moments about points A and C in relation to Fhc and Fhg. The perpendicular distance between the extended line of action of Fhc and the pivot A is 1.66 m, and the line of action is at an angle of 33.69° with respect to AC. The summation of moments about A shows the equivalent to 1.66 multiplied by Fhc, as well as the load of 6 KN properly multiplying its perpendicular distance to A of 1.5 m. The expert also explains the use of equivalent triangles and the alignment of internal forces with the pivot points. Finally, the expert provides additional resources for further understanding of
  • #1
user12323567
20
1
Homework Statement
Determine the force in members BC, HC, and HG. State if these members are in tension or compression.
Relevant Equations
Rigid-body assumption
Taking the moments about points A and C, why is a distance of 3 meters used in Fhc and Fhg? Isn’t it supposed to be 1.5 meters for both?
I acknowledge that Fhc and Fhg have x and y components, but were we considering the horizontal or vertical component (or both components) of either Fhc and Fhg in taking moments about points A and C respectively?
6-42.jpg
photo_2022-04-07_16-06-31.jpg
SOLUTIONS.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The perpendicular distance between the extended line of action of Fhc and the pivot A is 1.66 m.
That line of action is at an angle of 33.69° respect to AC.
The summation of moments about A in the provided response shows the equivalent to 1.66 multiplied by Fhc, as well as the load of 6 KN properly multiplying its perpendicular distance to A of 1.5 m.
 
  • #3
Lnewqban said:
The perpendicular distance between the extended line of action of Fhc and the pivot A is 1.66 m.
That line of action is at an angle of 33.69° respect to AC.
The summation of moments about A in the provided response shows the equivalent to 1.66 multiplied by Fhc, as well as the load of 6 KN properly multiplying its perpendicular distance to A of 1.5 m.
Yes, you take 2/sqrt(13) and multiply it by 3 to get said 1.66 m, I am asking why you are multiplying by 3 instead of 1 (the vertical perpendicular distance between A and Fhc)
 
  • #4
user12323567 said:
Yes, you take 2/sqrt(13) and multiply it by 3 to get said 1.66 m, I am asking why you are multiplying by 3 instead of 1 (the vertical perpendicular distance between A and Fhc)
Since Fhc is at an angle, do we consider both its components when we are looking at the moment about point A? i.e. Fhc(1.5)sin(gamma) - Fhc(1)cos(gamma)? Gamma is the angle of Fhc
 
  • #5
How is that vertical distance perpendicular to Fhc?
Please, take a step back and see how the forces aligned with the links try to rotate the armature about pivot A.
There is no need to break any of those forces into its x and y components.

You have two equivalent triangles to work with: ACH and ABH.
Because each node in the structure is a pivot, those internal forces of the links can only exist in alignment with them.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Lnewqban said:
How is that vertical distance perpendicular to Fhc?
Please, take a step back and see how the forces aligned with the links try to rotate the armature about pivot A.
There is no need to break any of those forces into its x and y components.

You have two equivalent triangles to work with: ACH and ABH.
Because each node in the structure is a pivot, those internal forces of the links can only exist in alignment with them.
If you consider the horizontal component of Fhc, you have a vertical perpendicular distance of 1. This would be much easier for me to understand if you explained why we have to use a distance of 3 meters when Fhc is not 3 metres away from A, please explain this.
 
  • #7
Yes, give me some time, please, and I will get back to you.
Note that, in that case, you also have to consider the additional moment that the vertical component of Fhc induces on A.
Then, the problem asks for the actual Fhc; therefore, you still have to use trigonometry to calculate that value.
 

FAQ: Using method of sections to solve for truss systems

How does the method of sections work for solving truss systems?

The method of sections is a technique used in structural analysis to determine the internal forces and reactions in a truss system. It involves cutting through the truss at a specific section and isolating a portion of the truss to analyze using the principles of static equilibrium.

When should the method of sections be used for solving truss systems?

The method of sections is most useful when there are multiple unknown forces in a truss system and when the external reactions are known. It is also helpful when the truss has a large number of members and joints, making it difficult to use other methods of analysis.

What are the steps for using the method of sections?

The steps for using the method of sections are as follows:1. Identify the section where the truss will be cut.2. Draw a free body diagram of the isolated portion of the truss.3. Apply the equations of static equilibrium to solve for the unknown forces.4. Repeat for any additional sections if necessary.

Are there any limitations to using the method of sections?

While the method of sections is a useful tool for solving truss systems, it does have some limitations. It can only be used to solve for forces in the members that are cut by the section. It also assumes that the truss is in static equilibrium and that all members are connected without any friction or deformation.

Can the method of sections be used for non-planar truss systems?

No, the method of sections can only be used for planar truss systems, meaning all of the members lie in the same plane. For non-planar truss systems, other methods such as the method of joints or the method of sections in combination with the method of joints may be used.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
494
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
9K
Back
Top