Flexural rigidity — where it appears
Named by 13 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Neither pinned nor rigid, which is every real connection
Frame analysis offers two options for a joint and reality supplies a continuum between them. Worse, the boundaries are not properties of the connection at all — the same end plate is rigid on a short stiff beam and semi-rigid on a long slender one.
The area of a diagram is a rotation
A deflection is the double integral of a bending moment, and the two constants of integration are the whole difficulty. Mohr's theorems replace them with two pictures — an area, and where that area's centre of gravity sits.
Built to the wrong shape on purpose
A cambered beam is fabricated curved upward so that load bends it down to something like straight. Nothing in the analysis changes, no stress anywhere is altered, and almost every mistake made with it is a bookkeeping mistake about which loads count.
Guessing the shape, and getting the load anyway
A column's buckling load can be had from a shape that is wrong everywhere, because the energy criterion is stationary at the true mode. The error in the load is the square of the error in the shape, and it is always high.
The stiffness that belongs to the span
A section's flexural rigidity is a property of the section, and a member's is not. Once shear deformation is counted the effective stiffness contains the span, so the same panel is a different member at three metres and at six — and for a sandwich the correction is not a correction.
The shear that moves the moments
In a statically determinate beam, shear deformation adds movement and changes no force. In a redundant one the forces come from how the beam deforms, so a stubby beam soft in shear carries less moment at its wall and more in its span — and the carry-over factor, the one half every hand method passes along, falls to nothing at φ = 2 and then changes sign.
The fixed-end moment is a column stress
A fixed end forbids a change of slope and a deviation, so on a member fixed at both ends Mohr's two theorems both have the answer nothing. Written with 1/EI as a width, those two conditions are the P/A + My/I of a short column under an eccentric load — the end moments are its edge stresses, and a haunched member's are read from where its elastic centre has moved.
The elastic centre is not on the frame
Cross's analogy turns a member fixed at both ends into a short column and its end moments into edge stresses. A closed frame's analogous column is the frame's own outline, its elastic centre is a point hanging in mid-air inside it, and the horizontal thrust a gravity load produces is that section's bending stress about the axis through that point.
The centre that hangs in the air
Cross's analogy turns a closed frame into a short column and reads its redundant moments off as that column's stresses. Nothing in it requires the frame to be straight. Run round a fixed arch, the analogous column's centroid is a point two thirds of the way up the rise, on no part of the arch at all, and the bending stress about it is the arch's horizontal thrust. For a parabola under a uniform load the answer it returns is a diagram of nothing, which is exactly right.
The axes that have to be turned first
Make one column of a portal shorter than the other and the analogous column stops being symmetric about a vertical line. It acquires a product of inertia, its principal axes tilt seven and a half degrees, and the thrust and the redundant shear stop being two separate divisions. Using the elastic centre and nothing else — which is what the symmetric construction looks like from outside — reports 17.0 kN·m at the left foot where the frame carries 27.8.
The load that is not a load
Settle one foot of a portal frame by ten millimetres and the frame develops moments with nothing applied to it anywhere. In the analogous column the case is simpler than a load case, not harder — the section carries no direct stress at all, and the whole answer is one bending stress. And it scales the wrong way: the moments are proportional to EI, so the stiffer the frame, the more a settlement costs it.
Three, and what three is a property of
The column analogy works because a closed ring cut once has three redundants and a plane section has three stress resultants. That match is the whole method, and it is topological rather than geometric — a portal, a pitch, a step, a splay and a polygonised arch are all one ring and all exact. Add a second bay and the frame has six redundants with nothing to be a drawing of, and the outer ring on its own is out by 190 per cent.
The bound from underneath
Rayleigh's quotient turns a guessed shape into a buckling load that is always too high. Divide the same guess differently — use the curvature its bending moment would cause instead of its own — and a parabola that was 21.6 per cent high is 1.3 per cent high. Add one more number that needs no guess at all and the load is caught from below as well, which is the only side of it an amplifier can safely use.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Second momentStiffnessSuperpositionCompatibilityColumn analogyDeflectionElastic centreIndeterminacyCentroidFirst moment of areaGraphic staticsArch thrust