Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Drift — where it appears

The horizontal movement of a structure under lateral load, quoted either at roof level or storey by storey. The first is easy to compare and the second is what damages things, and one is not a fixed fraction of the other.

Named by 11 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 One drift, two motions, opposite curvatures. The sideways movement of a 120 m building under a uniform wind, drawn as the sum of the two mechanisms that produce it. The bending curve is a cantilever's: flat at the base, steepening upward, concave one way. The racking curve is a stack of parallelograms: steepest at the base and flattening, concave the other. They add to 366 mm at the roof, of which 61% is bending. The one group that decides the split is αH = H√(GA/EI) = 2.48: below one the racking dominates and the building behaves as a frame, above about six the bending does and it behaves as a cantilever, and everything interesting is in between.

Two motions with one name

A tall building's sway is two movements added. A frame racks like a stack of parallelograms, worst at the bottom; a cantilever bends about its base, worst at the top. The total at roof level says nothing about which storey is worst, and on this building it is neither.

deflection · Drift components The corner columns take what the middle ones did not. Axial stress in the columns across one flange face of a 30 by 40 m framed tube, at the base. Plane sections says the flat line: every column on the face at the same distance from the neutral axis, therefore at the same stress. The solved distribution is the curve — 69.4 N/mm² at the corner against 18.2 in the middle, a ratio of 3.81. The middle columns lag because the only route the axial force has into them is the in-plane shear of the spandrel frame, bay by bay from the corner. The face is carrying its resultant on an effective width of 51 per cent, and the tube deflects as though its second moment were 72 per cent of the gross.

The corner columns take more than their share

A framed tube is a hollow cantilever, and a hollow cantilever's flange ought to be uniformly stressed. It is not, and the reason is that the only route the axial force has into a column in the middle of a face is the in-plane shear of the frame — one bay at a time, from the corner inwards.

structures · Framed tube Two cantilevers, or one wall, and the beams decide which. The deflected shape of a coupled pair of 6 m walls, drawn against the two limits it lies between. Release the coupling beams entirely and the pair is two independent cantilevers, deflecting 111 mm. Make them rigid and it is one composite wall of the full width, deflecting 16 mm — 6.8 times stiffer, because the lever arm between the wall centroids is 8.40 m and everything inside either wall is smaller than that. Real beams of 600 × 350 mm over a 2.4 m opening land at 23 mm and carry 63% of the base overturning as an axial couple rather than as wall bending. The degree of coupling never reaches one, because a beam of finite depth cannot suppress the walls' curvature entirely.

Two walls that agreed to be one

A pair of shear walls with a row of doors between them is the commonest lateral system there is, and it has two readings that differ by a factor of seven. What decides which one applies is a beam 600 mm deep over a 2.4 m opening — and most of the overturning ends up as an axial couple that no bending diagram contains.

internal-forces · Wall coupling The force falls, the drift rises, and the damping goes the wrong way. What a compliant foundation does to a 0.6 s building on a 8 × 8 m footing, against the stiffness of the ground under it. Three curves, all normalised to the fixed-base answer. The period lengthens — 1.31 times at 200 m/s — because the swaying and rocking of the foundation are flexibilities in series with the structure's own, and the rocking term carries an h², so it is the tall building that feels it. The base shear falls with the period, which is why a fixed base is usually called conservative. The displacement rises, by 51% here, and that is what breaks the cladding, the services and the gap to the building next door. And the effective damping falls rather than rises: the structure's own is divided by the cube of the lengthening — 2.2% of an original 5% — while a slender building's foundation radiates only 0.28% back, because rocking radiates almost nothing at these frequencies.

The ground is a spring

Every dynamic result in this collection has assumed a structure rising from something that does not move. Nothing does. A foundation can slide and it can rock, both are flexibilities in series with the structure's own, and the rocking one carries a square of the height — so the period lengthens, the force falls, the drift rises, and the damping goes the wrong way.

dynamics · Soil-structure The snow that left the roof is standing against the wall. A roof in section with a 1.0 m obstruction at its downwind end, drawn with the vertical scale exaggerated 4 times because a metre of snow on twenty metres of roof is thinner than the line it would be drawn with. The balanced layer is 0.48 kN/m² everywhere; the wedge against the wall holds the snow that 30% of the 20 m upwind gave up, so its area is fixed by conservation of mass rather than chosen. That makes it 0.85 m deep and 3.4 m long, with a peak load of 2.60 kN/m² — 5.4 times the balanced value, and still only 27% of the snow on the roof. An intensity several times the design load, made of a quantity nobody would notice had moved.

The load that arrives where the wind stops

Snow is the one load a structure is given rather than subjected to. What falls is spread evenly over a whole region; what a member carries is whatever the wind left above it, and the wind piles it against whatever gets in the way. The heaviest patch on a roof is usually a quarter of the snow on it.

equilibrium · Snow drift The corner columns take what the middle ones did not. Axial stress in the columns across one flange face of a 36 by 36 m framed tube, at the base. Plane sections says the flat line: every column on the face at the same distance from the neutral axis, therefore at the same stress. The solved distribution is the curve — 78.5 N/mm² at the corner against 13.4 in the middle, a ratio of 5.88. The middle columns lag because the only route the axial force has into them is the in-plane shear of the spandrel frame, bay by bay from the corner. The face is carrying its resultant on an effective width of 45 per cent, and the tube deflects as though its second moment were 64 per cent of the gross.

The columns that lean

A framed tube carries its wind load by bending the spandrel beams between its columns, and it does it badly — the corner columns take nearly six times what the middle ones do. Tilt the columns instead, so the perimeter is triangulated, and the same shear is carried axially. The concentration falls to 1.21 and the tube recovers most of the stiffness the plan said it had.

structures · Diagrid Where the demand crosses the capacity. Base shear against roof displacement for a eight-storey frame pushed with a triangular load pattern. It is elastic to 1994 kN, where the first storey reaches its shear capacity, and flattens as each of the others follows — 7 yield events in the order 3, 4, 2, 1, 5, 6, 7. The demand is a displacement rather than a force: the elastic spectrum at the building's own period of 0.93 s gives 173 mm, and the participation factor of 1.26 makes that 219 mm at roof level. Against an idealised yield of 70 mm that is a ductility demand of 3.10.

Pushed over until it will not stand

A structure in an earthquake is asked for a displacement rather than a force. A pushover answers a different question cheaply — how much base shear the frame has against how far its roof moves — and the whole art is in what happens when the two are laid over each other.

dynamics · Pushover The shear goes round the corner instead of across it. A 6-panel Vierendeel girder, 21 m by 6000 mm, under 300 kN at mid-span. There is no diagonal in it, so each panel's 150 kN of shear is carried as bending in the chords: the curves drawn along them are the chord moments, and every one passes through zero at the middle of its own panel. The local moment is the panel shear times the panel length over four, 131.3 kNm, and it adds to an axial force of 263 kN from the global moment at the same point. The girder deflects 109.09 mm against 6.53 mm for the same members triangulated — 16.70 times — and 98% of that movement is chord bending that a diagonal would have removed entirely.

The frame is a girder stood on end

Every unbraced building frame is a Vierendeel girder turned through ninety degrees, and the identification is not an analogy — it is the same equations with the axes swapped. Which means the frame inherits results that read as absurd for a building — more bays is stiffer, a wider building is not, and doubling one section property halves the sway.

structures · Vierendeel What the second, third and fourth arms are worth. Top drift removed against the number of outriggers, each arrangement at its own optimum levels, on a 40-storey core 200 m tall. One arm at 59 per cent of the height removes 82.3 per cent of the drift. A second, with both moved to 35 and 71, takes it to 91.6 — a gain of 9.3 points, which is half of what was left. The third is worth 3.0 and the fourth 1.5, and each one costs a storey of the building's most valuable height.

What the second arm is worth

One outrigger at its best height removes five sixths of a tall core's drift, which sounds like the end of the argument. A second removes half of what is left, a third half of that, and each of them costs a storey of the most valuable floor area in the building — so the question is not where to put an outrigger but how many the arithmetic still justifies.

structures · Outrigger 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

Named alongside it

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

Lateral systemStiffnessServiceabilityDuctilityLoad pathRackingTall buildingAxial forceBending momentBending stiffnessBracingCompatibility

All concepts