0
$\begingroup$

I recently had this question closed with the motivation that it was too broad:

https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/10378/intuitive-understanding-of-constitutive-laws-for-beam-properties

I disagree with the decision to close the question. I think someone with good understanding of the model quoted, could probably give a useful, succinct answer. I therefore think it would be better to leave this and similar questions open, until someone with the right experience might hopefully come up with a reply.

Asking how 6 parameters of beam characteristics can be interpreted intuitively, is not too broad.

(I have general opinions about Stack Exchange being too focused on formal aspects of the questions instead of trying to interpret the questions in the best possible way and try to supply good answers. But maybe that is for another question.)

I tried to discuss the question that was recently closed, but got no replies regarding why it was closed. I got some valuable comments that might gradually help building the knowledge necessary to reply to the question. (I have started simulating the parameters in question now. I have not come close to an answer yet, so far I can only say that reducing all parameters by a factor 1.e5 makes the beam "wobbly".)

| |
$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

As one of the users who voted to close your question, I can say that the reason behind my vote was the following: you are not actually asking for "intuitive explanations" for six beam parameters.

Your question asks about the parameters $F_{x,y,z}$ and $M_{x,y,z}$. My comment described those parameters in a way which I believe to be satisfactory.

In the comments, you then ask about other parameters, such as $EJ_{y,z}$. @user16622's comments described those parameters as well.

The fact that these comments were insufficient to clear your doubts implies that your lack of a "proper engineering background" is significant. You don't seem to have the foundational knowledge required to understand these parameters.

Therefore, you aren't asking to understand a few beam parameters. You're asking for a lesson in structural analysis. And that is a subject so broad, entire books have been written on it.

To quote Carl Sagan, "If you wish to make an apple pie, you must first invent the universe." Likewise, if you wish to understand beam properties, you must first learn structural analysis.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So that's why I always struggled with understanding structural analysis. If only Sagan had tipped me off to the enormity of it ahead of time. :-( Seriously though, good answer and good analogy. $\endgroup$ – user16 Jun 28 '16 at 11:58
  • $\begingroup$ I disagree on this. I have naturally looked into the basic concepts of internal forces before asking but I could not manage to follow this model. I still believe a person understanding the model in full could explain the parameters in an intuitive way. Naturally using simple concepts from physics, like torque, moment, Hookes law etc. I think forums like this is for people having experience in one area to help others by pass "inventing the universe". $\endgroup$ – ycc_swe Jun 28 '16 at 13:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The stack exchange model works best for specific, focused questions. Questions asking for what would ordinarily be the contents of a university lesson or a book chapter are not usually productive. We get a lot of questions where people think we can give them a shortcut "How can I make this myself, easily and cheaply" or "How can I understand this without studying the math?" The fact is that the way people develop an intuition for things is by working out the problems a bunch of times using other methods, until they are able to predict the outcome. There's no shortcut we can give you. $\endgroup$ – Ethan48 Jun 30 '16 at 13:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .