Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Degrees of freedom — where it appears

The independent displacements a structural model allows, one per direction of movement at each node. Their number sets the size of the stiffness matrix, and a structure with more of them than its supports restrain has a rigid-body motion in that matrix's null space.

Named by 11 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Three modes of a five-storey frame. The first three mode shapes of a five-storey shear frame, from the eigenvalue problem rather than sketched. Mode 1 has a period of 0.6 s, no node and carries 88.0% of the mass; Mode 2 has a period of 0.21 s, one node and carries 8.7% of the mass; Mode 3 has a period of 0.13 s, two nodes and carries 2.4% of the mass. The nth mode crosses the axis n−1 times, which is a theorem rather than a drawing convention.

A structure has more than one period

One mass on one spring has one period. A building with eight floors has eight, each with a shape of its own, and the second one bends the building into a curve nobody drew. They are not harmonics, they do not interfere, and each behaves as though the others were not there.

dynamics · Mode shapes Almost all of it is exactly zero. The stiffness matrix of a 2-bay, 3-storey plane frame: 36 freedoms, of which 16.2 per cent of the 36² entries are non-zero. The zeros are not small numbers; they are absences. A member reaches only the two nodes at its ends, so it can contribute nothing to any row belonging to a node it does not touch, and every such entry is zero exactly rather than nearly. The non-zeros therefore sit in a band of width 13 about the diagonal. Before the supports are applied the matrix is singular, and its null space has exactly three dimensions — the three rigid-body motions a plane frame has with respect to the ground, which is the same statement the null vector of the equilibrium matrix makes about a truss that is a mechanism, arrived at from the other end.

The matrix that replaced the hand methods

Moment distribution passes moments round a frame until they stop moving. Virtual work computes one deflection at a time. Both are exact and both stop scaling in the low tens of members. What replaced them adds no physics at all — the whole of the invention is the bookkeeping.

deflection · Stiffness method The check that everything adds up, and the error it cannot see. Four versions of the same 2-bay, 3-storey frame, with the global equilibrium residual each one produces — the sum of the reactions against the sum of the applied loads, as a fraction of the applied total. It is the first thing every analysis prints and it is worth having: a lost restraint and a load entered in the wrong unit both show up immediately, at 6% and 24%, because both change what the structure is carrying. The fourth bar is the point. A member whose stiffness is wrong by a factor of ten redistributes the internal forces completely — the second bar shows the change in the member forces, 18% — and the global residual is exactly zero, because the wrong answer is still in equilibrium with the same loads. Equilibrium is one equation per degree of freedom of the whole body, and a stiffness error lives entirely in the many equations underneath it. A model can satisfy every equilibrium check ever devised and be a model of a different structure.

The stiffness the load takes away

Buckling is usually taught as an event — a critical load, a bifurcation, a mode. Written as a matrix it stops being an event at all. A compressive load subtracts a stiffness from the structure, the subtraction grows with the load, and the critical load is simply where what is left reaches zero.

stability · Geometric stiffness One member's stiffness, scattered into the freedoms it touches. A member's own six-by-six stiffness matrix relates the forces at its two ends to the displacements there, and it is written in the member's own axes. Assembly is two operations and no physics: rotate it into the structure's axes, then add each of its thirty-six entries into the row and column of the global freedom that entry belongs to. Every member does the same, and the sum is the structure. The shaded rows and columns are the six freedoms this one member reaches; every other entry it contributes is exactly zero, and that is the whole reason a global stiffness matrix is sparse. Nothing here is an approximation — the result is the same equilibrium and the same compatibility a hand method writes, in an order a machine can follow.

The answer that depends on how it was divided

Every computed answer in this collection came out of a structure chopped into pieces — elements, strips, stations, trial positions. The chopping is invisible in the result and it is not neutral: some divisions give the exact answer, some give one that is always too stiff, and one of them changes nothing but the cost of getting there.

deflection · Discretisation The check that everything adds up, and the error it cannot see. Four versions of the same 3-bay, 4-storey frame, with the global equilibrium residual each one produces — the sum of the reactions against the sum of the applied loads, as a fraction of the applied total. It is the first thing every analysis prints and it is worth having: a lost restraint and a load entered in the wrong unit both show up immediately, at 8% and 32%, because both change what the structure is carrying. The fourth bar is the point. A member whose stiffness is wrong by a factor of ten redistributes the internal forces completely — the second bar shows the change in the member forces, 24% — and the global residual is exactly zero, because the wrong answer is still in equilibrium with the same loads. Equilibrium is one equation per degree of freedom of the whole body, and a stiffness error lives entirely in the many equations underneath it. A model can satisfy every equilibrium check ever devised and be a model of a different structure.

The check that cannot see the error

Every analysis prints a global equilibrium residual, and it is the first thing anybody looks at. It catches a lost restraint and a load entered in the wrong unit immediately. It is structurally incapable of catching a member whose stiffness is wrong by a factor of ten, because the wrong answer is still in equilibrium with the same loads.

equilibrium · Equilibrium check Four things a far end can be doing, and what each is worth. The rotational stiffness of a member at one end, for four conditions at the other, each drawn as the shape the member takes when the near end is rotated through one unit. They are the same expression evaluated four times — M = (2EI/L)(2θ_a + θ_b) — and the only thing that changes is what the far end is known to be doing. A held far end gives 4EI/L and carries over a half; a free one gives 3EI/L and carries over nothing; a far end rotating equally and oppositely gives 2EI/L and carries over minus one, which is what a symmetric structure does to a member crossing its axis; and a far end rotating equally and in the same sense gives 6EI/L and carries over one. None of the four is an approximation. Each removes a freedom that was going to be discovered by iteration.

Told what the far end is doing

Moment distribution discovers, cycle by cycle, that the pinned end of a beam carries no moment — a fact known before any arithmetic started. Telling it instead changes one stiffness from 4EI/L to 3EI/L and the work from thirty numbers to eight, for the identical answer. Cutting the beam on its own axis of symmetry gets it in two.

deflection · Moment distribution Every number in the table is a rotation, and none of them is a moment. The rotation contributions of a three-span beam of 8, 10, 8 m under 24 kN/m, sweep by sweep. There are six of them, one per member end, and not one is a bending moment: the moment is assembled at the end from M = FEM + 2m′ + m′ of the far end, and until that is done the table holds quantities that mean nothing on their own. That is the trade. A moment distribution stopped after two cycles hands over moments that are wrong by a known amount and can be used; this table stopped after two sweeps hands over nothing that can be read at all — and it gets there in four sweeps against Cross's own count on the same beam, writing six numbers a sweep rather than one per distributed member end plus a carry-over.

The table that cannot be read halfway

Kani's method converges at exactly the rate moment distribution does, sweep for sweep and digit for digit, because it is the same iteration. What it changes is what is written in the boxes — rotations rather than moments — and that buys a shorter table that repairs its own mistakes and cannot be stopped early.

deflection · Moment distribution Three quantities converging at three different rates. How much of the exact answer a truncated modal analysis of a ten-storey building reaches, against how many modes it keeps. The mass count is the rule — ninety per cent, reached at two modes. The base shear is ahead of it: one mode carries 85 per cent of the mass and 98 per cent of the base shear. The force in the top storey is behind it, at 80 per cent on one mode and 94 on two. The rule is written in the quantity that converges fastest, and it is checked against a quantity nobody plots.

The modes that were left out

Nobody runs every mode a model has, and the rule for how many is a mass count — enough to account for ninety per cent of the structure. The rule is written in the one quantity that converges fastest. On a twenty-storey frame two modes give the base shear to within one per cent and the force in the top storey to within twenty.

dynamics · Mode shapes Two capacity curves that agree, from two answers that do not. Base shear against roof drift for the same eight-storey frame with a soft ground storey, pushed with a fixed triangular pattern and with one recomputed from the tangent stiffness at every step. At a roof displacement of 426 mm they differ by 8.7 per cent — which is the number a capacity-spectrum procedure reads, and it is the number that is nearly the same. The storey drifts underneath these two curves differ by a factor of 3.8 at the fourth floor, and the drift is what the analysis was run for.

The pattern that stopped describing the building

A pushover analysis pushes with a load pattern chosen to resemble the first mode, and by the time the structure has done anything worth analysing it no longer has that mode. Recomputing the pattern as the frame softens changes the base shear by nine per cent and the drift at the fourth floor by a factor of four.

dynamics · Pushover The damping that stops helping. The storey drift's white-noise root-mean-square as the bearings' damping is raised from 2 to 50 per cent, each divided by the exact value at 2 per cent. The classical analysis promises that every increment helps, and at 50 per cent predicts 0.20 of the lightly damped drift. The exact analysis flattens: 0.34 at 20 per cent and 0.29 at 50, because the damping force at the bearings is transmitted into the superstructure's own mode, which the classical analysis has decoupled from it.

The damping that belongs to no mode

Give every mode its own damping ratio and throw the rest of the damping matrix away, and an isolated building's periods and damping come out right to within a fifth of a per cent. Its storey drift at the superstructure's frequency comes out six times too small. The bearings' dashpot pushes on both modes at once, and the more of it there is the less extra damping buys: the classical analysis promises the drift keeps falling, and it stops.

dynamics · Mode shapes The same mode's curvature, which can. The first mode's drift in each storey — the difference between the floors above and below it, which for a shear building plays the part a beam's curvature plays — intact, solid, and with storey 3 10 per cent less stiff, dashed, each scaled to the roof. The damaged storey's drift rises by 9.6 per cent; the storeys above it change by at most 1.8 and below it by at most 1.5. The largest change is in storey 3: the drift finds the damage and says where it is, which the frequency's fall of 0.91 per cent cannot.

What a mode shape notices that a frequency does not

Take a tenth of the stiffness out of one storey of a ten-storey building and its first frequency falls by a per cent at most, and by almost nothing if the storey is near the top. The mode shape looks unchanged, its match to the old one 0.99997. But the mode's storey drift — its curvature — rises by about a tenth in the damaged storey and hardly anywhere else, wherever that storey is. The instrument that sees the damage is the one almost nobody installs.

dynamics · Mode shapes

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

EigenvalueMode shapeConvergenceModal analysisStiffness matrixCompatibilityNatural periodSoft storeyMoment distributionOrthogonalityStiffnessStiffness method

All concepts