What is the correct way to understand that each square meter can withstand xx KG of force?
Thread Content
Our company has a product that is shaped like a rectangular prism, with dimensions of 3.9m * 3.3m * 2.7m, and a weight of around 5000 KG； Then, 14 legs are evenly distributed below for support; each leg has a bottom plate measuring 220mm*220mm and a thickness of 20mm. (The general shape can be imagined as: a cigarette box with 14 matchstick legs evenly distributed at the bottom.) Now the client has stated that the load-bearing capacity of their floor is 400 KG/M2. I had a disagreement with my colleague; my view is that the base plate of the legs should be replaced with one that is larger in size, one that can cover the entire area of the equipment (with an area of ≥12.5 m2). The reason is that 5000KG/12.5M2=400KG/M2, which meets the load-bearing capacity required for the customer’s floor. Colleague’s opinion: The total weight of the equipment is 5,000 KG. There are 14 legs in total; thus, 5,000 / 14 = 357 KG per leg. This meets the client’s requirement of 400 KG/M². He believes that if one square meter can bear such a load, then a single point can also bear it. With 14 legs installed, each leg bears an average load of 357 KG, regardless of the size of the leg base plates. May I ask, whose view is correct? I feel like I wasted my time on physics. . . (This should be something that those familiar with civil engineering know well; experts, please reply quickly.)
The same questions are being asked. Under normal conditions, the loading is as such; there is also the issue of seismic design, as well as wind load, all of which generate horizontal forces
Your colleague is the one who’s wasted time studying physics. .
5000/14=357KG 357/（0.22*0.22）=？ ? kg/m²? ? I didn’t study physics in vain, right?
If by floor you mean a concrete slab, your calculation is correct. If your floor refers to tiles or something similar, it will be damaged; 357/0.0484=over 7,000 kg.