Dear sir, after calculating internal energy ,, we are calculating deflection by equating it with external work done.thats alright.but differentiating the internal energy w.r.t the force is also providing the same deflection..so what is the connection between these two?
@DrStructure6 жыл бұрын
If we think of a beam as a collection of small elements, then each of those can store a small amount of energy (which is the product of internal force and deformation). The actual deflection of the beam does not appear in the expression for internal energy. That deflection exist only for the entire system, not for the individual infinitesimal elements. When we add up the energy for the individual elements in the beam, we get the total energy. Suppose we expressed this internal energy in terms of the applied load, since the internal force in each member is a function of that applied load. But, since that energy is not directly defined in terms of the system displacement, how could that displacement result when we differential the energy expression with respect to the applied load?
@biditsarbajna9796 жыл бұрын
Dr. Structure for any structure solvable by work energy principle is giving the same result when I am differentiating the internal energy w.r.t the applied load..and to calculate the displacement in any other location we are assuming an imaginary load at that point and calculating the displacement and in the final expression the imaginary load is substituted by 0. Now it is very similar to unit load method and seems to be an application of virtual work principle..but I am not getting the actual connection between these two.
@DrStructure6 жыл бұрын
I am not quite sure what you are doing, how you are solving the problem. Feel free to write down your solution in a step-wise manner and email it to me (dr.structure@educativetechnologies.net). Once I better understand your solution, we can have a discussion around the topic.
@biditsarbajna9796 жыл бұрын
Dr. Structure I am sending you the photo of solution of one problem sir
@DrStructure6 жыл бұрын
What you are using is called Castigliano’s Second Theorem. The theorem is derived from the observation that change in external work equals to change in internal energy, say with respect to load P. Let U = internal energy. P be an applied load, and D the displacement under P. Since there may be other loads applied to the structure, the expression for U could involved other loads and displacements. Say, there are two applied loads, P and Q with the corresponding displacements D and E. Then we can write: U = (1/2) P D + (1/2) Q E. Now, suppose we make an infinitesimal change to P, call it dP. This causes a change in internal energy which we refer to as dU. This additional energy is the result of dP traveling through D. That is: dU = dP D. If you are asking wouldn’t dP cause additional displacement in direction D? If we denote change in that displacement as dD, then it can be said that there is also a (1/2)(dP)(dD) change in internal energy due to dP. But this term is very small and can be neglected. So, dU = dP D. But since dU is a function in terms of other loads and displacements, we can write is in terms of partial derivate this way: Let r denote the partial derivative operator, then (rU/rP)(dP) = dP D Note that the left hand side of the equation is dU. Simplifying the above equation, we get: rU/rP = D. That is, the target displacement equals to the partial derivative of U with respect to P. Intuitively, if the expression of external work and internal energy is: (1/2) P D = (1/2) Integral of (M m dx/EI) Then taking the (partial) derivative of both sides with respect with gives us: D = d(W)/dP where W is the integral expression.
@accessuploads78346 жыл бұрын
Every lecture is going to open my brain...Thank you so much dear Dr. Structure
@shahnawaz_834 жыл бұрын
Wov great sir very very informative and useful piece of engineering
@vibhore96246 жыл бұрын
Thanks.... I have clear all my doubts about this work energy principle... Keep it up...👍
@balaganapathy68694 жыл бұрын
wow wow wow tat was excellent lecture.......keep the good work sir
@engdoretto9 жыл бұрын
The best channel! Awesome explanation!!!
@nitin57777 жыл бұрын
this is such a good channel..why is it have low subscribers... i don't get it..u guys are amazing
@naluwoozahadijja37303 жыл бұрын
Just proportional to number of engineers
@treeflux46248 жыл бұрын
Great video, now i understand. Nothing describes this feeling of knowing what you are doing/thinking. Thanks
@DrStructure9 жыл бұрын
Question: You had this video before, but then you removed it and brought it back today, why? Answer: The explanation for external work needed to be made more clear, hence the re-posting of the video.
@jssplrs7 жыл бұрын
Is this also Castigliano's Second Theorem?
@DrStructure7 жыл бұрын
In principle, yes.
@jssplrs7 жыл бұрын
Dr. Structure I see. Do you have sample problem about Castigliano's Second Theorem?
@DrStructure7 жыл бұрын
Sorry, don't have any ready examples for that.
@jssplrs7 жыл бұрын
Dr. Structure Oh, it's alright. Thank you!!
@venkatesh22859 жыл бұрын
It is very easy to understand the concepts by your simulation and presentation,thanks for sharing .....we need more videos such as in structural analysis,mechanics of solids and strength of materials subjects....
@002kenken3 жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot Dr. Structure!!
@aliqan62588 жыл бұрын
amazing videos love you all who worked hard to make these videos. god bless you all
@supertv27839 жыл бұрын
Thank you Dr. Structure it is so great videos...
@mrmadame289 жыл бұрын
thank you very much, much clearer than my shitty university teacher
@peterhun31852 жыл бұрын
Great lecture!!!!
@structuresquestion12999 жыл бұрын
Good video, but I had one question: In the table (time/load/displacement/work), I don't think the work increments are correct. For example, shouldn't the work increment for the first step (t1) equal to 1/2*f*delta? I don't see how the sum of the work increments in the table can sum to 1/2*(nf)*(ndelta) as is stated in the video.
@DrStructure9 жыл бұрын
+Structures Question Since the load increment is very small, (f times delta) is a good approximation for the work done by the force. According to the table, total work equals: f(delta) + 2f(delta)+3f(delta)+...+n f(delta). This can be written as: SUM (i=1 to n) (i)(f)(delta). Since SUM(i=1 to n) i = n(n+1)/2, then the above sum becomes: n(n+1)(f)(delta)/2 Since n(f) = F and n(delta) = D, then we can write: total work = (1/2)(F)(D + delta). But since, delta is quite small, it can be neglected. So, work = (1/2)(F)(D).
@ineverlickyoghurtlid39035 жыл бұрын
very interesting. the relation between deflection and bending forces is linear as well as four-times integration! integration is linear!
@yamikawaii3217 жыл бұрын
This is awesome! THX for UPLOAD!
@hewandejene25786 жыл бұрын
I REALLY LIKE IT
@venkatesh22859 жыл бұрын
Sir ,I can't able to understand the concept of stress-strain curve diagram for mild steel,torsion steel and concrete &theory of simple bending concept....can u able to provide a video for that....please
@Siloglie64216 жыл бұрын
tqvm Dr..love it
@Akki420ish7 жыл бұрын
9:50 How did moments become equal to 3 kN-m? Please explain
@DrStructure7 жыл бұрын
A load of 2kN is applied at mid span. That makes the left and right vertical reactions 1 kN each. A reaction force of 1 kN at the left end of the beam results in a bending moment of (1 kN) (3 m) = 3 kN.m three meters away from the reaction force.
@Akki420ish7 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much. Got it!
@sublimina14252 жыл бұрын
Hi, in 4:29 I don't understand why isn't the work at t2 equals 4f*delta or just f*delta as the force increment is f and deplacement is delta why did you right it's 2f*delta? Thanks
@DrStructure2 жыл бұрын
At t2, the added f causes an additional displacement delta. So, we get f*delta. But, the other f, the one that was there from step t1 also goes through the new delta doing work. The work done by that f in step t2 is also f*delta. So, the total work increment in step t2 is the sum of the two f*deltas, or, 2f*delta.
@sublimina14252 жыл бұрын
@@DrStructure okay got it thank you so much
@zeusmthyical36063 жыл бұрын
He speaks the language of God.
@Adanosiam9 жыл бұрын
Thank you,like well earned.
@krshkmp20154 жыл бұрын
Dear Sir! I would like to know why for the beam analysis, on should consider the forces as applied incremently. In fact, I still have problem with the factor of (1/2). If the the force was not considered as applied incremently to the beam, we wouldn't get this factor of (1/2). Now why we should apply those forces incremently for the beam analysis? Thank you!
@DrStructure4 жыл бұрын
Think of it this way: a very small force applied to the beam causes a very small deflection. As the load increases so does the deflection. This relationship between load and deflection, if we graph it, takes the shape of an inclined line, To graph the line we can use two points. Assuming the x-axis represents deflection and the y-axis represents load, one of the points could be the origin (meaning that when the load is zero, the deflection is zero). And, when the load is P, say the deflection is D. Note that such an inclined line defines a triangle. That is, the area under the line is that of a triangle. Since work done by P can be defined as the area under the P-D diagram, then we can write work as (P)(D)/2. Without 1/2, we end up calculating the area of a rectangle. That would mean that the relationship between P and D is constant. That is, no matter how small or large the load, the beam deflects the same amount. This is like saying the beam deflects 10mm regardless of the magnitude of the load. But that kind of behavior is not consistent with how structural materials behave.
@krshkmp20154 жыл бұрын
@@DrStructure Thank you sir! I got it.
@the_right_path_147 жыл бұрын
what about energy in the element due to shear forces, we dont consider them as well ? 9:07
@DrStructure7 жыл бұрын
In classical beam analysis, we generally ignore internal energy due to shear deformation since it is often small and negligible. Shear deformation however becomes an issue in deep beams, thus should not be ignored in such cases.
@MusicYinon8 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much!
@chungken84966 жыл бұрын
Excuse me, @0812, there have 2 Moment on both side of beam, how about if there have just 1 Moment on right side, what is the equation of work?
@DrStructure6 жыл бұрын
External work comes to develop under applied loads only, no matter how the structure deforms. If the beam was subjected to one moment only, then only that moment contributes to external work. If the moment at the left side did not exist (if it was zero), then the expression for work would have become: Work = (1/2) ( 0 theta_1 + M theta_2) Or simply, Work = (1/2) (M theta_2)
@jitsupasermsilp14523 жыл бұрын
What is the substitute of L? I mean which length of the beam should be used to calculate the final answer?
@DrStructure3 жыл бұрын
I am assuming your are referring to the un-deformed vs deformed length. When analyzing the beam, we always use the un-deformed length of the beam.
@osamhalbaiti17716 жыл бұрын
in 6:36 why do we take external work as the area of the triangular and what do you mean by saying that it is a linear elastic material i mean why donot we just take external work = P* Delta. Could u answer me please
@DrStructure6 жыл бұрын
The area of the triangle represents the sum of the work done by the load increments. That is, the sum of the entries in the last column of the table at 5:21 Linear material are ones in which the ratio of force to displacement, (or stress to strain) is linear. So, when we graph force vs displacement, we get a straight line. Elastic material is one in which when the load is removed from the member, its displacement goes back to zero. So, displacements are not permanent, they disappear when the load disappears. Pull a spring, and then release it, and you would see elastic behavior in action. Pull the spring too much, the elongation becomes permanent, the material (steel) no longer behaves elastically when a large force is being used. So, steel could be treated as elastic material up to a certain point before it becomes inelastic. If we apply a force to an object that moves unopposed, like pushing a cart on the friction-less surface, the work done by force P equals P * Delta where Delta is the amount of displacement the car goes through. Beams, however, don't behave like that. Beams want to resist displacement, that is why when the load is removed, the displacement vanishes. In the case of the cart, that is not the case. That internal resistance to displacement in structural members is the cause for (1/2) factor in the expression of work.
@osamhalbaiti17716 жыл бұрын
thank you so much, Dr
@DrStructure6 жыл бұрын
You are welcome!
@DrStructure6 жыл бұрын
The idea of integrating (P)(delta) over the length of the beam does not work here. Why? Because P is a concentrated load, not distributed over the length of the beam, work involves only P and the displacement under it. The beam displacements away from P do not contribute to work done. If the load was distributed so that we could write it as w(x) and then displacement in the beam was expressed as d(x), then the integration idea would work, but not in our case. Although, we can think about work due to a concentrated load as an integration problem too, but integrating over time. Say, we define P as a function of time. p(t) where at each point along time, there is a load increment, say, p(1), p(2),…p(n) are load increments at time, 1, 2, …, n. And at each such increment, displacement under the load is d(1), d(2), …, d(n). If we graphed this as p vs d, then we get that triangular area. Why the area is triangle and not rectangle, why is that (1/2) factor present when calculating the area under the graph? This has to do with how much work is being done per time increment. If we take p as a small load increment, then in increment 1 work done is (p)(d), in increment 2 it is (p)(2d), then (p)(3d), and so on until we reach the last increment at which the work is (p)(nd). The total work then is the sum (or the integral) over all the time increments. That sum is: (1/2)(P)(D) where P = np and D = nd.
@the_right_path_147 жыл бұрын
Quastion on the work done on 7:10 : if i will apply first p1 and then p2 ,the point of application of P1 move through some distance and P1 does work without the 0.5 factor…wont I get a different answer ?
@DrStructure7 жыл бұрын
No. The 1/2 factor is a function of the shape of the P-Delta diagram (triangular). It does not matter how many loads there are on the beam, if they are applied in increments, we get the same triangular shape. This is under the assumption that we have linear elastic behavior. To lessen the confusion, consider applying the method of superposition, when thinking about this problem. According to this principle, external work for P1 is (1/2)(P1)(D1) and external work due to P2 is (1/2)(P2)(D2). So, total work is the sum of the two: (1/2)(P1)(D1) + (1/2)(P2)(D2). Also, keep in mind that (1/2) does not show up in the incremental steps, it shows up at the end when we are adding up all the increments.
@the_right_path_147 жыл бұрын
I just read a proof on maxwell betti reciprocal theorem that they first apply p1 and then p2 and while p2 was increasing p1 work was without the 0.5 factor plus the half when it was first appleyed.but thank a lot.
@user-bv1ec8us7x8 жыл бұрын
Hi How do you implement the bridge curvature motion at time 6.47 in this video? I can use the videoscribe app but I don't know how to make such motion please help me thank you .
@DrStructure8 жыл бұрын
That animation is done using Adobe Animate. VideoScribe cannot create that type of animation.
@user-bv1ec8us7x8 жыл бұрын
+Dr. Structure thank you very much
@user-bv1ec8us7x8 жыл бұрын
+Dr. Structure thank you very much
@patrisagar65483 жыл бұрын
10:14 how do you know that total internal energy is that ? Please explain how you come up with that integration formula .
@DrStructure3 жыл бұрын
Imagine the beam consists of N infinitesimal elements each being deformed by some small angle (d theta_i) due to an internal bending moment M_i. Since the internal energy associate with each element is (M_i)(d theta_i)/2, the total internal energy can be written as the sum of element internal energies, or: SUM (M_i)(d theta_i)/2 for i = 1 to N. Since M is a continuous function, the above discrete expression, mathematically speaking, can be replaced by the continuous integral expression: INTEGRAL M (d theta) /2
@febrianimariyaningrum70133 жыл бұрын
@@DrStructure why the N is 10 ? 0 to 10?
@DrStructure3 жыл бұрын
@@febrianimariyaningrum7013 Are you referring to the limit of the integral? That 10 is the length of the beam. That is, we are integrating the expression over the length of the beam.
@civilideas19252 жыл бұрын
👍🏻
@fahimahmedbhuiyan22523 жыл бұрын
its really really helpful! thank you very very much! Could you plz show me the proof how this 07:13 formula is generated?
@DrStructure3 жыл бұрын
The derivation for the work done by a single force was presented earlier in the video. A single force (P) going through displacement (D) results in (P)(D)/2 work. If we have multiple forces acting on a body each going through a specific displacement, then the total work done by these forces is the sum of the work done by the individual forces. So, if two forces (P1 and P2) go through displacements D1 and D2 respectively, the total work would equal to: (P1)(D1)/2 + (P2)(D2)/2.
@fahimahmedbhuiyan22523 жыл бұрын
@@DrStructure @Dr. Structure what makes me confused is: Firstly, I assume, P1 is working @A, causing displacement D1, and after P1 worked, P2 involved (let me know if Im wrong here, if both are working at the same time unlike I assumed, then how will the calculation be?). If my first assumption is correct, when P1 is working @ point A, it causes some displacement not only @ point A, but at the other point B too!! Let that be D2. So far so good, Now when another force P2 is working @B and generated a certain displacement (let D3), MY CONFUSION IS the total displacement @B (letD3) after P2 involved includes not only the displacement by force P2 itself, but also from previous force P1. In my sense displacement by P2@B will be found by subtracting the displacement @B by caused by P1 itself...so the formula be like 1/2(P1*D1+ P2(D3-D2))does it work that way?? I don't know...plz correct me and plz give me some concept too. I hope I could make you understand my confusion😇. It will be very helpful for me if you plz show me some derivation for "1/2(P1*D1+P2*D2)" like you did for "1/2P*delta"...
@DrStructure3 жыл бұрын
Yes, you are correct, D1 and D2 are dependent on both P1 and P2. So, it is not the case that P1 only causes D1 and P2 only causes D2. Calculating D1 and D2 due to P1 and P2 is a different conversation than what is the total work done by P1 and P2. Here, we are not using the expression for work to calculate D1 and D2. We are simply stating that if the structure has displaced by D1 (say, at point 1) and there is a displacement of D2 at point 2, and these displacement develop under load system P1 and P2. Then, the total work equals (P1)(D1)/2 + (P2)(D2)/2.
@fahimahmedbhuiyan22523 жыл бұрын
@@DrStructure owww....now I got it😊. Is there any video or book that you can refer me to know more about how these formulas are derived from the scratch? Actually your awesome explanation and creative videos made me so stubborn to know about this topic from very deep😊. This cerdit is yours! Thank you very much again. May I know from which country is this brilliant channel's guy from?😊
@DrStructure3 жыл бұрын
You want to look into energy methods. Most textbooks on introductory structural analysis devote at least a chapter or two to energy methods. The KZfaq channel is being maintained (technical questions answered) by a few people distributed across the world. The channel itself originates from the United States.
@a.msayem16639 жыл бұрын
awesm
@experimentoruser99172 жыл бұрын
9:13 why energy is equal to angle *moment?
@DrStructure2 жыл бұрын
Energy is stored work. In beams where beam segments deform (by some angle) due to the internal force (moment), internal work = stored energy = the integral of (angle/rotation) times moment. This is analogous to external work which is the product of displacement and force.
@experimentoruser99172 жыл бұрын
@@DrStructure why is that moment*rotation is analogous to displacement*Force?
@experimentoruser99172 жыл бұрын
is there any geometrical basis or something ?
@experimentoruser99172 жыл бұрын
I understand that moment (you refer as force) causes rotation(deformation), but the fact that moment is not a force, and rotation is not a change in length confuses me.
@DrStructure2 жыл бұрын
Rotation *is* a displacement. Moment *is* a force. It is true that we can distinguish between linear vs rotational displacements/forces (the same way that we can distinguish between linear vs angular velocity), but that distinction does not imply that only one type of displacement/force produces work/energy. Work/energy is the product of displacement and force, be they linear or angular/rotational.
@jp23x3 жыл бұрын
Im paying Fresno State Tuition to come learn from a cartoon on youtube.
@DrStructure3 жыл бұрын
Hopefully this video is just a part of your learning experience, and you have other resources at your disposal to help you develop a good understanding of structural analysis concepts and method.