Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Limit analysis — where it appears

Bounding a collapse load without solving for the path to it, by finding either an admissible set of internal forces or an admissible mechanism. The first is a lower bound and the second an upper one, and neither claims to describe what the structure actually does.

Named by 5 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The two theorems close on the answer from opposite sides. A pinned-base portal frame under 200 kN at mid-span and 80 kN at the eaves, with a plastic moment of 200 kNm. The three horizontal lines are mechanisms — work equations, each an upper bound: the beam mechanism gives 1.000, sway 1.250 and the combined one 0.714. The curve is the lower bound: for each value of the one redundant, the largest load factor whose moment field stays inside the plastic moment everywhere. Its peak is 0.714, and it touches the lowest mechanism exactly — so the collapse load is known rather than bracketed. Using the beam mechanism instead would have claimed 1.40 times the real capacity, and the sway one 1.75 times, both of them on the wrong side.

Two ways of being wrong

Plastic analysis has two theorems and they point in opposite directions. Any equilibrium field that nowhere exceeds the plastic moment gives a load at or below the collapse load; any mechanism gives one at or above it. Only one of those errors is safe.

equilibrium · Bound theorems The line, and the stone it has to stay inside. A masonry pier 9 m high, 1.6 m thick at the top and battered 12% on its outer face, taking a thrust of 40 kN per metre of run at 25° to the horizontal. The line drawn through it is the locus of the resultant on each horizontal cut: everything above the cut is the free body, and the resultant's position is the moment divided by the vertical force. The dashed pair is the middle third, inside which no tension is implied anywhere on the joint. The line stays inside the stone throughout and reaches the base at 0.503 m from the centre, against a half-width of 1.34 m — but outside the middle third, so part of the base joint is open and the toe is carrying a triangle. Nothing about the strength of the masonry appears anywhere in this figure, and that is the point.

The weight that makes it safer

Every load in this collection makes a structure worse. A pinnacle does not. A masonry pier fails when the line of compression leaves the stonework, and adding weight at the top rotates that line back towards the vertical without adding anything the pier cannot carry — so the stone is not being strengthened, it is being aimed.

structures · Buttress One of these two curves is a stiffness and the other is a statement of statics. The torque a spandrel beam carries, against how much of its torsional stiffness is left. The rising curve is compatibility torsion — a floor beam framing into the side of the spandrel, which shares its fixed-end moment of 197 kNm between the spandrel's torsional stiffness and its own flexural one. Uncracked, the spandrel takes 51% of it, or 100 kNm; at a quarter of that stiffness it takes 21%, or 41 kNm, and the floor beam picks up what was shed. The flat line is equilibrium torsion — a canopy cantilevering 2.2 m off the same spandrel, whose 116 kNm is fixed by statics and contains no stiffness at all. The first can be designed away by accepting a rotation. The second cannot be designed away by anything.

The torque that should not be shed

A compatibility torque can be let go, because the load has somewhere else to go. What the rule does not say is what it costs the somewhere else — a twenty per cent rise in a floor beam's midspan moment, a crack width nobody limits, and a rotation the spandrel has to actually deliver. There is a size of torque past which shedding is the wrong answer, and no code states it.

internal-forces · Compatibility torsion Removing each member in turn. Every member of a 8-panel pratt truss removed one at a time, with the worst demand on the survivors plotted against the member removed. Four of the 35 leave a mechanism — the bars drawn to the top of the frame — and for those there is no redistribution to compute, because there is no structure left. The rest redistribute, and the worst of them asks a survivor for 2.04 times what it carried before. A single number for robustness does not exist: it depends on which member goes.

A determinate truss has no robustness at all

Remove any one of a Warren truss's thirty-one members and what is left is a mechanism. Not weakened — gone, with no set of forces that holds the load in any position. Robustness is not a property a structure has by degree; it is bought by adding members that carry nothing until something else stops carrying, and a truss without them has none of it to measure.

structures · Robustness One pulse, two blocks of the same shape. Rotation as a fraction of the toppling angle, under a single 0.8 s sine pulse of 1.00 g, for two blocks of identical proportion whose sizes differ by a factor of 3. Both lift off at the same instant, because uplift depends on the shape alone. The small one reaches the toppling angle and goes over; the large one reaches 46%. The kinks are impacts: there is no dashpot anywhere in this model, and the only energy the block loses is lost when it lands on its other corner, at a velocity ratio of 0.926 per landing — 14% of the energy each time, decided by the block's shape and by nothing else.

The only damping is the landing

A rocking block has no dashpot in it. The only energy it ever loses is lost at the instant it lands on its other corner, and how much is a property of the block's proportions — 14 per cent for a slender one and 38 for a stocky one. That single number decides whether it settles or goes over, and a real base does not deliver the value the theory computes.

dynamics · Rocking

Named alongside it

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

DuctilityEquilibriumOverturningRedistributionRedundancyStabilityStiffness attracts loadThrust lineArchBearing stressButtressCollapse mechanism

All concepts