Mod 3 Summary of Models  Table KP6 1
5:34
Mod 3 KP 6 Part 6 Lognormal Example
16:02
Mod 3 KP 5 Part 1 Normal
25:23
3 жыл бұрын
Mod 3 KP 4 Part 4 Mean and Variance
9:45
F21 CAT 1 Item 2 Mechanical Props
7:06
Summary Part 5 Applications
9:09
3 жыл бұрын
Summary Part 4 Regression
4:27
3 жыл бұрын
Summary Part 3 Hypothesis Tests
12:46
Summary Part 2 Intervals
11:34
3 жыл бұрын
Summary Part 1 Probability
11:54
3 жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@markbenn1907
@markbenn1907 16 күн бұрын
Fantastic explanation. Thank you very much!
@tariks846
@tariks846 18 күн бұрын
Thanks sir but why we go even for the second mode ? We design the structure based on the first mode. I don't understand why softwares do buckling Analysis with 6 modes minimum?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 18 күн бұрын
I can’t speak to software rationale. But, there hundreds of examples of braces whose sole role is to prevent the primary mode and otherwise are non load carrying members. We also see this for the lateral support of beams. Identifying the higher mode shapes tells us where to connect the bracing and the impact on the buckling strength.
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 18 күн бұрын
It’s also a part of understanding the mathematical model
@averytidlund8375
@averytidlund8375 Ай бұрын
very clear and well explained. thank you
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Ай бұрын
you are welcome
@mustafaaydin8389
@mustafaaydin8389 2 ай бұрын
Thank you for this video...
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 8 ай бұрын
Not sure why comments from folks are not showing, here. John Riley posted: "Hi Doug, This video is awesome. I'm struggling a little to understand at 10:30 the shortcut where the carryover moment at the bottom is half the moment at the top of the propped cantilever? Trying to find an example of a fixed-fixed beam with applied moment to see where that assumption comes from." That carry-over moment of one-half when the "far" end is fixed and the "near" where we apply a moment (which has a roller support) comes out of the moment-distribution method. The carry-over can be derived with, say, the relaxation method. Relax the redundant support (the roller), apply the moment, let the beam deflect (calculate that amount: D0 = ML^2/2EI) and then put back into place with the roller support's reaction ... D = RL^3/3EI. That reaction will be R = 3M/2L. Then solve for the other reactions. M_far = M/2 where that M is the applied moment at the near end. That M_near would be 13.5 k-ft in this case.
@rezaathari740
@rezaathari740 10 ай бұрын
part 2?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 10 ай бұрын
I am surprised that it is not in the playlist, also. These were created so long ago (last time I taught Statics), that I do not recall how many of the inclass examples were also posted. Entirely likely that it simply was not done. Or, it sits somewhere else and just wasn't added to the playlist.
@HashemAljifri515
@HashemAljifri515 Жыл бұрын
Unfortunately the questions do not come like this :(
@alaynas2335
@alaynas2335 Жыл бұрын
thank you!!
@SudheendraHerkal736
@SudheendraHerkal736 Жыл бұрын
Hi, why doesn't out of plane wall transfer load to lateral load resisting system directly?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
Think of it this way ... walls only have significant strength and stiffness in their plane. Out of plane, they typically behave as a simply supported beam (a 1-ft wide strip that runs up and down). They transfer the forces perpendicular to their surface (such as wind and seismic effects) to the "top" and "bottom" of that strip. Sometimes, the engineer designs the wall for the strip to be horizontal rather than vertical. Either way, the wall transfer those load effects over to perimeter elements (could be a column, beam, or wall that is perpendicular to the wall of interest; could be a floor or roof system). The reason is that in-plane behavior is very stiff involving shear and normal strains that are very stiff ... think in terms of EA/L like in an axial stiffness situation as opposed to EI/L^2 or L^3 for bending situations. Out of plane wall behavior is like bending of a beam. It is more complex than just EI/L (the latter being beam bending behavior but the wall is really structural plate behavior). If that is more theory than you like, consider it this way. Glue a bunch of long sticks together and stand the whole thing up like a wall. Clamp ahold of the "Wall" at its base. Try to push it in-plane. Compare that to what happens when you push it out of plane. In the extreme, think of the wall as a sheet of paper. That sheet of paper has almost not out of plane stiffness.
@SudheendraHerkal736
@SudheendraHerkal736 Жыл бұрын
​@@dougschmucker8212Hey Doug, that makes sense but my question was along the lines of why is it always assumed as though the out of plane walls are one way slabs transferring loads to diaphragm and footings, and not as two way slabs with loads being transferred to the in plane walls as well?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
@@SudheendraHerkal736 Two basic reasons: engineering design is about what is good enough as opposed to what theoretically might be, and what is simplest and easiest to do that gets the job done. Regular walls are typically designed and constructed as one-way systems and most often they behave that way as well. Maybe even more importantly: too time consuming to work through and verify the two-way slab design process even if automated in a computer ... Note that most of the computer solutions are nothing more than a way to code up the hand based solutions. It is rarely if ever a true FEM solid modeling of a three dimensional slab. We wouldn't even know what to do with those stress calc's because of the complex nature of reinforcement and matrix interactions. Instead, we always end up with approximate methods whether by hand or by computer tools. We can be more efficient with our time and end up in a safe place using one-way methods. Then, if we need to refine what we are doing, then we can do something more precise. And, finally, if you start adding openings, then you are going to end up with something way different than just a "two-way" slab wherein you add so much reinforcement that you might as well have trust treated it as a series of one way strips. Obviously, people have found all kinds of different ways to do things, but these are many of the reasons why we start with a very simplistic model and only add complexity as it is genuinely needed.
@SudheendraHerkal736
@SudheendraHerkal736 Жыл бұрын
@@dougschmucker8212 Hey Doug, that makes sense! Thank you!
@imtiaz2053
@imtiaz2053 Жыл бұрын
Thanks boss. The video really helped me
@jrv136
@jrv136 Жыл бұрын
How does a member go in to 2 mode of buckling ? please explain
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
It doesn’t. All depends on bracing patterns. If bracing prevents lower modes, then the higher occurs.
@liamjackson1509
@liamjackson1509 Жыл бұрын
Why shear stress is maximum at neutral axis and why it is parabolic. I couldn't realise it. Please describe it with visual explanations.
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
Try the next mini lesson, video V1 3 Derivation of the Shear Stress Model
@williamshen7793
@williamshen7793 Жыл бұрын
I love you bro! You saved me. Exam tomorrow!
@GulZamanKhan-c2c
@GulZamanKhan-c2c Жыл бұрын
can you please also explain, what will be boundary conditions if a prismatic beam is fixed at one end while welded with a vertical slider at other end.
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
Depends what you mean by a vertical slider. Rollers on a vertical plane? Then rotation is constrained and horizontal displacement is constrained. But vertical displacements are free?
@Ryan-bx7gu
@Ryan-bx7gu Жыл бұрын
is there a pdf version ofthis notes? i really need them for my som studies
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
😉Yes, but of course those would come from my day job. Copyrighted and such.
@cccraigslist
@cccraigslist Жыл бұрын
Thanks G
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
Entirely welcome!
@danielkoch8291
@danielkoch8291 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the clarity of terminology!
@hoyeolhur8953
@hoyeolhur8953 Жыл бұрын
but in the beam formula book, it says Mmax = PL/8 each end. Could you please explain why they are different from yours ?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
What is going on here is slightly different. The protocol being used is to first "guess" or speculate as to the answer. Then, apply a specific methodology which in turn provides an improved (and perhaps exact) answer. I believe that your question refers to the exact fixed end moments. This first step "0. Guess" assumes something simpler that is not a statically indeterminate system so that the guess is easy to obtain. In later parts to the work, you find the details of how one gets to those answers that you seem to reference. By making the system determinate or using some other assumption and then comparing those results with those of a more exact approach, you end up discovering key aspects of either the solution technique or the actual performance of the system. It also often reveals to the novice the typical mistake that is made. For instance, assuming the moment is zero in the middle of the beam (a hinge) does permit a way to estimate the end moment (PL/4). The real moment at the end will be half of that (PL/8). Indeterminate beams are stiffer than determinate beams (all other aspects being the same). As such they will develop smaller internal forces than the comparable determinate system. And that is a key understanding.
@danieldelcarpio5446
@danieldelcarpio5446 2 жыл бұрын
unknowen
@solidkreate5007
@solidkreate5007 2 жыл бұрын
Tool Designer, I have my first ste of Locking Pliers to design. This helped out quite a bit. Thank you very much.
@chongochishimba6207
@chongochishimba6207 2 жыл бұрын
finally understood the sign convention for shear stresss thanks
@donabien-aime1884
@donabien-aime1884 2 жыл бұрын
I have 1797.67 in^4 for the moment of Inertia.
@extrato35
@extrato35 2 жыл бұрын
Do the vertical legs at the top have zero forces?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 2 жыл бұрын
Yes
@colinhennessey5076
@colinhennessey5076 2 жыл бұрын
Have you used this example using the matrix stiffness method? If so could I possibly see the worked out example, or link to the video if you made one?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 2 жыл бұрын
Yes and no. Certainly, yes but with different numbers. You might check my matrix channel; not entirely clear just what is or is not included in that one.
@colinhennessey5076
@colinhennessey5076 2 жыл бұрын
@@dougschmucker8212 what is your matrix channel?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 2 жыл бұрын
@@colinhennessey5076 Looks like I am mistaken. I do not have a matrix playlist. I used to use many of the videos in the first structural analysis course in the second (matrix). But, not quite seeing the specific ones that I thought might be there. I am no longer the primary instructor of that second course, so don't really have motivation for putting those examples on a free channel.
@nicolasramirez3944
@nicolasramirez3944 2 жыл бұрын
Awesome discussion and exploration of this topic. Really appreciate the talk about moving the inflection point depending on beam stiffness. We didn't talk about this back in my class. Thanks for helping my understanding!
@bagusbudi3018
@bagusbudi3018 2 жыл бұрын
Great video, gaining more understanding. what is the main goal of designing the diaphragm, is it to design the reinforcement? or to check the load transferred to the vertical system? Tks
@bagusbudi3018
@bagusbudi3018 2 жыл бұрын
what is the difference between the tension only & the tension+compression cross bracing? what is it look like in the real world? Thanks
@uditraizada1335
@uditraizada1335 Жыл бұрын
Hi, I am working on a project having both tension and T and C bracing, we can connect if u are still interested.
@rolandn1677
@rolandn1677 2 жыл бұрын
When calculating the moment around D, I think it should be (R x Fac SinO) in other word ( radius vector X force AC X sinO) the angle theta is the one between the radius vector and the force. In this case I would say:Md=(-26*300)+(6*ac3/sqr10)
@nicolasramirez3944
@nicolasramirez3944 2 жыл бұрын
This was great! Thank you
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 2 жыл бұрын
You are welcome
@BussinMoto
@BussinMoto 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you kindly for posting this! Basic mechanics videos are so useful!! =)
@logikalreply852
@logikalreply852 2 жыл бұрын
Excellent video … I wish you make one more video to analyse the braced frame and find out forces in the braces .. thanks
@josepedrofernandes5005
@josepedrofernandes5005 2 жыл бұрын
Why does beam along y-y axis not shown on 2d view (buckling with x-x in plane) ? 3D view not consistent with 2D view?
@zkeeg
@zkeeg 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much, sir!
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 2 жыл бұрын
You are welcome!
@peterr2103
@peterr2103 3 жыл бұрын
Great video!!!
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you, Peter!
@jamesordner1368
@jamesordner1368 3 жыл бұрын
Just what I was looking for. Thanks
@etvhjkl9141
@etvhjkl9141 3 жыл бұрын
the sound is not good I am quite disappointed
@bharatsondhi9757
@bharatsondhi9757 3 жыл бұрын
In the picture you have shown in first page, the column is braced along the Major axis, any specific reason? major axis is strong enough to take moments
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 3 жыл бұрын
It is an example, that is all
@bharatsondhi9757
@bharatsondhi9757 3 жыл бұрын
Noted, Thanks
@simengg7824
@simengg7824 3 жыл бұрын
great video, imaginative explaination as always, i enjoy these videos from you sir, please keep updating at regular intervals
@mmgedi
@mmgedi 3 жыл бұрын
Wow, great way of connecting moment distribution to slope deflection equations. Thanks for uploading this video.
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks. It is a traditional view point not covered much anymore in the textbooks.
@eduardos.delarosa1654
@eduardos.delarosa1654 3 жыл бұрын
Omg professor you just saved my life, I spent like one hour looking for this problem. I have only one question, I found the exact same result in a sheet full of formulas for beams (is not a book) but all the results have the opposite sign, I was wondering if this is because they took the bending moment as negative when they started to integrate? sorry for my english I'm Mexican. edit: thank you for the video
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 3 жыл бұрын
All depends on the sign convention used for moment. The US sign convention assigns positive bending moment to positive curvature. The European sign convention assigns positive bending moment to hogging (negative) curvature. ps. sort of sounds like you searched the internet for an answer rather than learning the principle. hope instead it was the latter instead of the former.
@faizamohamed7741
@faizamohamed7741 3 жыл бұрын
In the case of Pin/roller in mid, isn't the moment at the right end become clockwise producing clockwise rotation? thanks
@faizamohamed7741
@faizamohamed7741 3 жыл бұрын
This is really superb explanation of differential relationships of force and force effects. I am sure it would have reached a lot of students if this clip were titled in such a way that KZbin algorithm shows it if someone searches this concept. Anyways thank you so much for taking the time to record this.
@vaishalitripathi2106
@vaishalitripathi2106 3 жыл бұрын
What will be the number of maximum possible reaction at fixed support in cantilever beam
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 3 жыл бұрын
A fixed end would resist translation in two directions and rotation about the third (if in 2-D).
@enescaglarkorkmazgoz7897
@enescaglarkorkmazgoz7897 3 жыл бұрын
Hey Doug, cool video, thanks!
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 3 жыл бұрын
you are welcome!
@chrononk7544
@chrononk7544 3 жыл бұрын
I don't understand where is force applied .. in air ? Shouldn't be applied in the member itself to avoid it's twisting
@piyushrawat3862
@piyushrawat3862 3 жыл бұрын
Just imagine a plate on the cross section where the force will be applied at some certain distance
@coltonsowsun3681
@coltonsowsun3681 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks Doug! That was an awesome explanation.
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 Жыл бұрын
Ya welcome!
@makaremkarem1681
@makaremkarem1681 3 жыл бұрын
Hello i have q about stiffness coefficient can I send to you??
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 3 жыл бұрын
you can find me at the university of utah
@hypekreps4465
@hypekreps4465 3 жыл бұрын
Isn’t the 900N also clockwise?
@dougschmucker8212
@dougschmucker8212 3 жыл бұрын
With respect to point C, the shear center, no. That is actually the issue at hand. The 900 N is the shear force. It needs that couple in the flanges to equilibrate the couple caused by the 900 N with respect to the shear center. These asymmetric shapes induce this type of effect.
@arsalanahmad4669
@arsalanahmad4669 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks man, Great Job
@simengg7824
@simengg7824 3 жыл бұрын
thank you
@simengg7824
@simengg7824 3 жыл бұрын
can we have a detailed solution video for the same problems.?