Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Differential shortening — where it appears

The difference in axial shortening between two vertical elements at different stresses, which tilts the floors between them and peaks at mid-height. Its load-driven part is a parabola with its maximum near mid-height, and only the part arriving after a floor is set shows up as a tilt in the finished building.

Named by 6 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two differences up the same building, peaking in different places. Differential shortening between a perimeter column and the core of a 40-storey building, plotted up the height. The part driven by load peaks at level 20 — exactly half way up, because a floor near the top has almost nothing built above it to shorten what is beneath, and a floor near the bottom has almost nothing beneath it to shorten. The part driven by shrinkage does not care what is above it at all and accumulates all the way to the roof. Their sum is worst at level 40, at 43 mm, which across a 9 m bay is a floor out of level by one in 208.

The columns are shorter than the core

Every column in a tall building gets shorter as the building is built on top of it, and the core beside it gets shorter by a different amount. The floors between them tilt by the difference — and the difference is largest exactly half way up, because a floor near the top has almost nothing built above it and a floor near the bottom has almost nothing beneath it.

deflection · Differential shortening How much of a deflection belongs to the beam. The share of the total deflection that is the beam's own bending, against the stiffness of what it sits on. A 8 m beam on two supports under a uniform load: on rigid supports every millimetre is the beam's, and the share falls away as the supports soften until almost none of it is. The beam drawn beside this figure sits at 51% — so 49% of what it does is happening somewhere a beam calculation never looks. The two flexibilities are in series, which means the softer one governs and stiffening the other buys nothing.

The deflection that belongs to the support

A beam calculation answers a question about a beam sitting on things that do not move. Real ones sit on bearings, on other beams and on columns that shorten, and every one of those is a spring in series with the member — so a deflection is the sum of two things and only one of them is a property of the beam.

deflection · Support flexibility A couple applied to the core, and two columns to make it. A 20-storey core with one outrigger at 59% of its height. The arm is stiff in bending and the perimeter columns are stiff in tension and compression, so between them they resist the core's rotation at that level — a couple of 35283 kNm here, carried as a 294 kN pair in the columns at 120 m centres. The compatibility is one equation: the core's rotation at that level, less what the couple takes back out of it, equals the rotation the arm and its columns allow. The top drift falls from 360 mm to 74, which is 80% of it, and the base moment from 73500 to 38217 kNm. The deflected shape is drawn hugely exaggerated: the real top drift is about one five-hundredth of the height.

The arm that makes the columns work

The perimeter columns of a tall building are already there, already carrying gravity, and already the furthest thing from the centre. They take almost none of the overturning, because a floor slab transmits shear and not moment — and one storey-deep arm at the right height changes that by nearly a half.

structures · Outrigger The props decide where the stress ends up. Bottom-fibre stress in the steel of a 12 m composite beam carrying 6 kN/m of wet concrete and 9 kN/m afterwards. Unpropped, the bare steel takes the first stage alone and reaches 146 MPa; propped, the finished composite section takes everything and reaches 93 MPa — a ratio of 1.57. 62% of the unpropped beam's final stress was locked in before the slab was structural at all. The deflections differ by 1.73 times for the same reason, and no drawing of the finished beam distinguishes the two.

The section that changed while it was being loaded

A stress is computed from a moment and a section modulus. When part of the moment arrived while the section was a different shape, there is no single section modulus to divide by — the stresses add and the properties do not, and two identical finished beams can differ by half again in stress with nothing on the drawing to say which is which.

sections · Staged section The least reliable number in the material decides the answer, briefly. What a twenty per cent error in the concrete's tensile strength does to a computed deflection, against how far past cracking the beam is. Well past the cracking moment it does almost nothing — at 1.9 times M_cr the spread is 56 per cent — because the section is nearly fully cracked and the interpolation has run out. Just above cracking it does everything: at 1.19 times M_cr the same twenty per cent moves the deflection by 3658 per cent. Tensile strength is the property with the widest scatter and the least direct test, and a beam designed to sit near its cracking moment has put the answer on it.

The curvature nobody applied

Concrete shrinks as it dries, by about half a millimetre in every metre. In a symmetrically reinforced member that is a shortening and nothing else. In a member with more steel in one face than the other — which is every beam and every slab — the steel holds one side back and the section bends, with no load on it at all.

deflection · Shrinkage curvature A tie is worth all of itself and a strut is not, which is worth nine per cent. The same 20 floors carried two ways, with every member drawn at the width its own force requires. Hung, the loads accumulate upward, so the largest hanger is at the top: 18.0 MN at 355 N/mm² with no buckling reduction of any kind. On columns they accumulate downward and the largest column is at the bottom, at the same force — but every column above it is understressed by its own slenderness, worst at the top where a 900 kN column still has to be 4.8 × 10³ mm² to reach χ = 0.529. Over the height the hangers total 0.002 m³ of steel against 0.002: a saving of 9.0 per cent, which is the average χ and nothing else.

Hung from the top, and nine per cent lighter

A tie is worth its full strength and a strut is not, so hanging the floors of a building from a hat truss ought to be an obvious economy. It is a real one, it is measurable, and it is nine per cent of the steel — shrinking as the building gets taller, which is the opposite of what the argument sounds like.

structures · Hung structure

Named alongside it

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

Construction sequenceCreepServiceabilityAxial shorteningCamberCompatibilityCoreDeflectionModular ratioSelf-equilibratingShrinkageStiffness

All concepts