Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Modelling — where it appears

Choosing what a calculation will represent and what it will not. Every idealisation errs in a known direction for each check it feeds, and the direction is not the same for all of them — neglecting stiffness is conservative for a deflection and unconservative for a frequency.

Named by 2 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The check that everything adds up, and the error it cannot see. Four versions of the same 3-bay, 4-storey frame, with the global equilibrium residual each one produces — the sum of the reactions against the sum of the applied loads, as a fraction of the applied total. It is the first thing every analysis prints and it is worth having: a lost restraint and a load entered in the wrong unit both show up immediately, at 8% and 32%, because both change what the structure is carrying. The fourth bar is the point. A member whose stiffness is wrong by a factor of ten redistributes the internal forces completely — the second bar shows the change in the member forces, 24% — and the global residual is exactly zero, because the wrong answer is still in equilibrium with the same loads. Equilibrium is one equation per degree of freedom of the whole body, and a stiffness error lives entirely in the many equations underneath it. A model can satisfy every equilibrium check ever devised and be a model of a different structure.

The check that cannot see the error

Every analysis prints a global equilibrium residual, and it is the first thing anybody looks at. It catches a lost restraint and a load entered in the wrong unit immediately. It is structurally incapable of catching a member whose stiffness is wrong by a factor of ten, because the wrong answer is still in equilibrium with the same loads.

equilibrium · equilibrium check Every reason a building is stiffer than its model, added up. The computed natural frequency of a floor, and the same frequency after each source of stiffness that was deliberately left out is put back. Not one of them is a modelling error. Cladding and partitions are stiffness nobody is allowed to rely on for strength; a nominally pinned connection is never pinned; a slab acts with its beam whether or not shear connectors were provided; and concrete between the cracks is stiffer than a cracked section assumes. Together they multiply the stiffness by 1.83 and the frequency by 1.35, because a frequency is the square root of a stiffness, and every factor is halved on the way through. The asymmetry is the finding: leaving stiffness out makes a deflection conservative and a vibration check unconservative in the direction that matters, since a stiffer floor has a higher frequency and sits further from the footfall range. The model here reads 4.40 Hz against a 5.2 Hz criterion and fails it; the floor reads 5.95 Hz and passes. The correction that would have got it right is exactly the stiffness nobody is willing to count on.

Stiffer than the model said

Measured natural frequencies of finished buildings come out between ten and sixty per cent above the values computed for them, consistently and in one direction only. Nothing on the list of reasons is a modelling error: every one is a real source of stiffness deliberately left out — and leaving stiffness out is conservative for deflection and unconservative for vibration.

deflection · measured stiffness

Named alongside it

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

StiffnessCalibrationCompatibilityComposite actionDampingDeflectionDegrees of freedomDeterminacyEquilibriumFloor vibrationFootfallFree body

All concepts