I can't thank you enough for these videos. I usually stare at an awful lecturer or at my Hibbeler book for multiple hours and get nowhere, but this is making my life a lot easier.
That moment of clarity when all things come together like that first bite of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a tall glass of cold milk....well soy milk because....you know. #youknow
Thank you so much for these videos! My professor is super hard to understand and goes so fast that i feel completely lost in class, but when I watch your videos everything makes sense the first time.
I was getting so stressed out because I couldn't get my head around this after my lecture, then I watch this and all my problems were ironed out! Thanks a bunch man!!
Thanks for the support, but let's not get carried away here it's just a video on mechanics. Although I would not mind being able to convert water to wine on a regular basis....is there an app for that?
Excellent video. Thanks. I have doubt. If I have a highly elastic beam in pure bending (no shear), until what included angle will the formula for strain (i.e. -y/R) be valid?
you're such a DON! your videos are targeted towards viewers actually understanding! Thanks so much for these! I hope they stay on youtube for a long time to come!
Could you tell me any real-life applications of Deformation of a thin plate and/or Linear Elasticity, i already have a condenser microphone and thermoplastic thermoforming Thanks
My suggestion is that you step away from the book derivation and attempt to derive it by yourself using your own notation; it will involve failing, but that will show you what assumptions they made and what simplifications they stepped into (which you could mention here for completion). That also helped me better explain the buckling formula. Also, you could include an analysis from a meshed FEM software like Abaqus, to show that the assumptions about the 'NA' are incorrect and limit the beam formula in the longitudinal direction (for completion). The limitations of the beam formula should be known to the designer, especially in more complex cross sections (even if prismatic). Local buckling, longitudinally asymmetric elongation, etc. are products of the simplifying assumptions. These concepts give the user a balanced idea of what the beam formula can and cannot do. Also, the DelX = p*DelTheta is a geometric property of arc length, not triangles. See: "The angle around a circle can go from 0 to 2 pi radians. The arc segment length is always radius x angle. When the radius is 1, as in a unit circle, then the arc length is equal to the radius."-www.geogebra.org/m/mbzAXPmu That property is valid beyond small angles.
in the beginning of the video ... when you mentioned neutral axis.. you actually meant longitudinal axis of the beam. Neutral axis comes only in the cross section right?
Hey! Great video! I have a question. This derivation shows that strain varies linearly along the cross section. (saying (epsilon)=-y/(rho).) Is this only valid for linear elastic bending or will the section strain graph change from linear to some other shape when it yields? like if for instance a steel beam yielded, would the strain still be linear along the section? Thank you!
Dustin Brennan even if the materials yield, a beam's strain profile still remains linear assuming everything stays connected. The stress profile however would no longer be linear.
that's what i thought, z lying in the plane of the cross section is the neutral axis, x-axis is the longitudinal axis, this is straight from the text book.
If you were near me I would kiss your beautiful head in thanks because I'm so happy. Been stuck on this problem for hours because my lecturer never bothered to explain ANY OF THIS!
its a formula for finding out the arc length of a circle if theta is angle and r is radius then length of curvature\ arc length lets call it S, is given by s = r x theta if you want proof\ derivation of formula think of it like this circumference of whole circle = 2pi x R now here 2pi is not just a constant number but it is angle in radians so the formula for arc length is S = R x angle(in radians)
appreciate the fact that you sound like a homie rather than an old boring prof. makes me understand things better (:
I want to truly thank you, pulling an all nigther, covering weeks of work
I can't thank you enough for these videos. I usually stare at an awful lecturer or at my Hibbeler book for multiple hours and get nowhere, but this is making my life a lot easier.
I wish I were my prof too.
a tip: watch series on Kaldrostream. I've been using them for watching lots of of movies recently.
@Kenneth Lian Yea, I've been watching on kaldroStream for since december myself =)
that moment when a free 15mins video explains things better than a paid 1hr lecture
That moment of clarity when all things come together like that first bite of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a tall glass of cold milk....well soy milk because....you know. #youknow
structurefree Yuknows Beyancenulls.
Thank you so much for these videos! My professor is super hard to understand and goes so fast that i feel completely lost in class, but when I watch your videos everything makes sense the first time.
I was getting so stressed out because I couldn't get my head around this after my lecture, then I watch this and all my problems were ironed out! Thanks a bunch man!!
This is so much easier to digest than those dry textbooks. Much gratitute for putting your stuff online!
This is a great explanation of the flexure formula. Thanks man. Greetings from Macedonia. Keep up with the good work.
thanks for the comments. It just takes time and Allen Iverson's favorite word.
Thanks for the support, but let's not get carried away here it's just a video on mechanics. Although I would not mind being able to convert water to wine on a regular basis....is there an app for that?
This video is really helpful. It includes figure that's why it seems very easy to understand...
Dude, great videos. I love your attitude! Keep up the great work bro
no, no, no, you're amazing.
You are a Beautiful person...My mechanics prof doesn't speak English so this is amazing
Thank U sir.. You explain it so Clearly.
This is cool because it's mathematical proof that the top is compressing and the botton side is in tension. In statics it wasn't as obvious to me.
thank you very much for the videos and all the effort you put into doing these amazing stuff
Excellent video. Thanks. I have doubt. If I have a highly elastic beam in pure bending (no shear), until what included angle will the formula for strain (i.e. -y/R) be valid?
Thank you for this video, it was very helpful!
seriously you should lecture us in the uni!
Awesome channel! So glad I stumbled onto your channel! Thanks for sharing.
To the point and very clear. Thanks!
really sir you are great
Thank you, these videos are really clearing up a few misconception I have had!
What programs and equipment do you use to produce these videos?
The dude is like a wizard.
you're such a DON! your videos are targeted towards viewers actually understanding! Thanks so much for these! I hope they stay on youtube for a long time to come!
Thanks a lot sir! This video really helps me! Keep up the good work :)
What program are you using to write these tutorials out for us? Looks nice
for your delta s and delta s', are those values some arbitrary line above the neutral axis or do they represent the section above that line?
Could you tell me any real-life applications of Deformation of a thin plate and/or Linear Elasticity, i already have a condenser microphone and thermoplastic thermoforming
Thanks
tnx for uploading this video I hope this
will help me..
for addition on my knowledge
can we say that y/raw is the ratio of change in length and multiply it by the x
My suggestion is that you step away from the book derivation and attempt to derive it by yourself using your own notation; it will involve failing, but that will show you what assumptions they made and what simplifications they stepped into (which you could mention here for completion). That also helped me better explain the buckling formula. Also, you could include an analysis from a meshed FEM software like Abaqus, to show that the assumptions about the 'NA' are incorrect and limit the beam formula in the longitudinal direction (for completion). The limitations of the beam formula should be known to the designer, especially in more complex cross sections (even if prismatic). Local buckling, longitudinally asymmetric elongation, etc. are products of the simplifying assumptions. These concepts give the user a balanced idea of what the beam formula can and cannot do.
Also, the DelX = p*DelTheta is a geometric property of arc length, not triangles. See: "The angle around a circle can go from 0 to 2 pi radians. The arc segment length is always radius x angle. When the radius is 1, as in a unit circle, then the arc length is equal to the radius."-www.geogebra.org/m/mbzAXPmu
That property is valid beyond small angles.
Is there anyway you can post your notes from the videos?
But how do you find the radius of curvature???
if the question says compressive stress=45 MPa in my calculations do I have to use positive or negative sign?
in the beginning of the video ... when you mentioned neutral axis.. you actually meant longitudinal axis of the beam. Neutral axis comes only in the cross section right?
yoshita sahishna technically it's a plane.
Hey! Great video! I have a question. This derivation shows that strain varies linearly along the cross section. (saying (epsilon)=-y/(rho).) Is this only valid for linear elastic bending or will the section strain graph change from linear to some other shape when it yields? like if for instance a steel beam yielded, would the strain still be linear along the section? Thank you!
Dustin Brennan even if the materials yield, a beam's strain profile still remains linear assuming everything stays connected. The stress profile however would no longer be linear.
Dustin Brennan Great question!
I love your channel
Id rather pay my tuition money to youtube than to my reputable 4 year university...
Thank you Structurefree.
The neutral axis you are showing is wrong..its called neutral plane. The neutral axis is along the z axis at each cross section, isn't it???
that's what i thought, z lying in the plane of the cross section is the neutral axis, x-axis is the longitudinal axis, this is straight from the text book.
If you ever do a MOOC, I'm in.
tnx for uploading this video I hope this will me little bit
I still don't understand what it means by linearly
Thanks this helps a lot.
amazing content:))
thanks !!!! you easily described it sir :)
What is (ro).∆theta ....? Can someone tell me plzzz
It is the arc length when the angle, deltatheta, is very very small.
@@structurefree thanku 😊
Thank you.
you're amazing
If you were near me I would kiss your beautiful head in thanks because I'm so happy. Been stuck on this problem for hours because my lecturer never bothered to explain ANY OF THIS!
I didn't get the ∆x=(rho).∆(theta)
its a formula for finding out the arc length of a circle
if theta is angle and r is radius then length of curvature\ arc length lets call it S, is given by
s = r x theta
if you want proof\ derivation of formula think of it like this
circumference of whole circle = 2pi x R
now here 2pi is not just a constant number but it is angle in radians
so the formula for arc length is S = R x angle(in radians)
Roh Nain bro it's simple...l=r*thetha is the formula where l is length of arc r is radius and thetha is the angle enclosed by the arc
geez you love dat straight edge XD
upload more videos
fo sho.
word.
You drew left handed axes OOF
I need lectures in Arabic if I allowed the student of Civil Engineering
wish you were my prof -__-
Hey dude you sound like Salman khan from khan academy..
thx dude but please stop using the word " BAMM "
my prof sucks...
😭