Modified moment of inertia of sections with a single web, is equal to moment of inertia of the section about Y-Y axis at the point of maximum bending moment and is multiplied by the ratio of ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Modified moment of inertia of sections with a single web, is equal to moment of inertia of the section about Y-Y axis at the point of maximum bending moment and is multiplied by the ratio of

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The maximum bending moment due to moving load on a simply supported beam, occurs:....

QA->When the disposal is forwarded to record section what is to be obtained from record section by fair copy section:....

QA->What is a graph is plotted taking °C along the Y-axis and of K along the X-axis?....

QA->Two dimensional chart that plots the activity of a unit on the Y-axis versus the time on the X- axis:....

QA->A student multiplied a number by 4/5 instead of 5/.The percentage error is :....

MCQ->Modified moment of inertia of sections with a single web, is equal to moment of inertia of the section about Y-Y axis at the point of maximum bending moment and is multiplied by the ratio of....

MCQ-> Read the data given below and answer the questions based on it. There were 3 sections namely A, B, and C in a test. Out of three sections, 33 students passed in Section A. 34 students passed in Section B and 32 passed in Section C. 10 students passed in Section A and Section B. 9 passed in Section B and Section C, 8 passed in Section A and Section C. The number of students who passed each section alone was equal and was 21 for each section.The ratio of the number of students passed in one or more of the sections to the number of students who passed in Section 7 A alone is:
....

MCQ-> The controversy over genetically modified food continues unabated in the West. Genetic modification (GM) is the science by which the genetic material of a plant is altered, perhaps to make it more resistant to pests or killer weeds, or to enhance its nutritional value. Many food biotechnologists claim that GM will be a major contribution of science to mankind in the 21st century. On the other hand, large numbers of opponents, mainly in Europe, claim that the benefits of GM are a myth propagated by multinational corporations to increase their profits, that they pose a health hazard, and have therefore called for government to ban the sale of genetically-modified food.The anti-GM campaign has been quite effective in Europe, with several European Union member countries imposing a virtual ban for five years over genetically-modified food imports. Since the genetically-modified food industry is particularly strong in the United States of America, the controversy also constitutes another chapter in the US-Europe skirmishes which have become particularly acerbic after the US invasion of Iraq.To a large extent, the GM controversy has been ignored in the Indian media, although Indian biotechnologists have been quite active in GM research. Several groups of Indian biotechnologists have been working on various issues connected with crops grown in India. One concrete achievement which has recently figured in the news is that of a team led by the former vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru university, Asis Datta — it has successfully added an extra gene to potatoes to enhance the protein content of the tuber by at least 30 percent. It is quite likely that the GM controversy will soon hit the headlines in India since a spokesperson of the Indian Central government has recently announced that the government may use the protato in its midday meal programme for schools as early as next year.Why should “scientific progress”, with huge potential benefits to the poor and malnourished, be so controversial? The anti-GM lobby contends that pernicious propaganda has vastly exaggerated the benefits of GM and completely evaded the costs which will have to be incurred if the genetically-modified food industry is allowed to grow unchecked. In particular, they allude to different types of costs.This group contends that the most important potential cost is that the widespread distribution and growth of genetically-modified food will enable the corporate world (alias the multinational corporations – MNCs) to completely capture the food chain. A “small” group of biotech companies will patent the transferred genes as well as the technology associated with them. They will then buy up the competing seed merchants and seed-breeding centers, thereby controlling the production of food at every possible level. Independent farmers, big and small, will be completely wiped out of the food industry. At best, they will be reduced to the status of being subcontractors.This line of argument goes on to claim that the control of the food chain will be disastrous for the poor since the MNCs, guided by the profit motive, will only focus on the high-value food items demanded by the affluent. Thus, in the long run, the production of basic staples which constitute the food basket of the poor will taper off. However, this vastly overestimates the power of the MNCs. Even if the research promoted by them does focus on the high-value food items, much of biotechnology research is also funded by governments in both developing and developed countries. Indeed, the protato is a by-product of this type of research. If the protato passes the field trials, there is no reason to believe that it cannot be marketed in the global potato market. And this type of success story can be repeated with other basic food items.The second type of cost associated with the genetically modified food industry is environmental damage. The most common type of “genetic engineering” involved gene modification in plants designed to make them resistant to applications of weed-killers. This then enables farmers to use massive dosages of weedkillers so as to destroy or wipe out all competing varieties of plants in their field. However, some weeds through genetically-modified pollen contamination may acquire resistance to a variety of weed-killers. The only way to destroy these weeds is through the use of ever-stronger herbicides which are poisonous and linger on in the environment.The author doubts the anti-GM lobby’s contention that MNC control of the food chain will be disastrous for the poor because
....

MCQ-> Directions for the following four questions: Each question is followed by two statements A and B. Indicate your responses based on data sufficiencyThe average weight of a class of 100 students is 45 kg. The class consists of two sections, I and II, each with 50 students. The average weight, $$W_I$$ , of Section I is smaller than the average weight, $$W_{II}$$ , of Section II. If the heaviest student, say Deepak, of Section II is moved to Section I, and the lightest student, say Poonam, of Section I is moved to Section II, then the average weights of the two sections are switched, i.e., the average weight of Section I becomes $$W_{II}$$ and that of Section II becomes $$W_I$$ . What is the weight of Poonam?A: $$W_{II} - W_I = 1.0 $$B: Moving Deepak from Section II to I (without any move from I to II) makes the average weights of the two sections equal.
....