Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Masonry — where it appears

Units laid in mortar, which carries compression well and tension not at all. Its structural behaviour is therefore geometric: whether an arch, a wall or a pier stands is decided by where a line of thrust lies rather than by any stress the material reaches.

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

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 A straight line, and the comfortable case is already two thirds down it. The capacity of a 215 mm masonry wall as a fraction of its squash load, against the eccentricity of the resultant. Nothing in this figure is a buckling calculation. A material that cannot be pulled bears on a strip of width 3(t/2 − e) under a triangular stress block, so the capacity is exactly 1.5f(t − 2e) — a straight line, zero when the resultant reaches the face, and already at 67% at the edge of the kern. The middle third is treated everywhere as the comfortable case; a wall loaded there has given away a third of its capacity before slenderness has been mentioned. The lower line is the same wall with slenderness in it, which enters as an ADDITIONAL eccentricity of 17.4 mm rather than as a reduced stress — h_ef²/2400t, for h_ef = 3000 mm. Euler's load for this wall is 9.6 times what the eccentricity rule allows, which is why no masonry calculation contains it.

It does not buckle, it runs out of width

Every stability failure in this collection is a member that could have carried tension deciding to go sideways instead. Masonry cannot carry tension, and its failure under an eccentric load is not a bifurcation at all — the bearing area simply shrinks until it runs out. The capacity is exactly linear in the eccentricity, Euler's load is ten times anything allowed, and no material property appears until the very end.

stability · Wall slenderness The middle third, computed. The kern of a 300 × 600 mm rectangle, computed by asking, for every direction, how far the resultant can move before the far face would be pulled. It reaches ±100.0 mm vertically and ±50.0 mm horizontally, which are h/6 and b/6 exactly, and the region between is a rhombus rather than the ellipse the two numbers suggest — a resultant on a diagonal has less room than either axis allows.

The strength thrown away on purpose

Masonry, concrete and soil are all analysed as though they had no tensile strength whatever. Each of them has some. The decision to set it to zero is the single most consequential modelling assumption in the subject, it is safe for one kind of check and unsafe for another, and almost nothing that uses it says which.

materials · No tension The deflection a building can take, and which way it is bending. The limiting deflection ratio — the sag or hog of a building divided by its length — at a critical tensile strain of 0.075 per cent, against how long the building is compared with its height. Two curves, and the gap between them is the whole finding: hogging is worse than sagging by exactly 2.0 times, because the neutral axis of a hogging building sits near the bottom and the tension face is the full height of the wall. The minimum is at L/H = 1.6, where the two mechanisms cross: a squat building cracks diagonally in shear and a long low one cracks in bending at the extreme fibre.

The crack is a strain, not a slope

Angular distortion is what every table of settlement limits is written in, and it is a proxy. What cracks a building is a tensile strain in it, and reading the building as a deep beam says which of two mechanisms supplies it, why hogging is exactly twice as damaging as sagging, and why a horizontal stretch of a few millimetres takes half the capacity away before the settlement starts.

deflection · Differential settlement

Named alongside it

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

EccentricityKernNo tensionBearing stressEquilibriumSelf-weightServiceabilityStabilityTensile strengthThrust lineAngular distortionArch

All concepts