Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Moment distribution — where it appears

A hand method for a continuous frame: lock every joint, release them one at a time, and pass each out-of-balance moment to its neighbours. The corrections shrink at every cycle, it converges on the exact elastic answer, and the sequence shows where the moment travels on the way there.

Named by 13 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The answer arrives in instalments. The hogging moment at support 1 of a three-span beam, cycle by cycle. It starts at the fixed-end moment of 53.3 kNm — the value with every joint clamped — and settles at 64.0 kNm against an exact 64.0. The error falls by about a factor of four per cycle: 14.00, 3.50, 1.95, 0.59 kNm after one, two, three and four. Two cycles is an engineering answer and nobody had to invert anything.

Solved by passing it around

An indeterminate structure needs simultaneous equations, and for thirty years engineers solved them without writing any down. Clamp every joint, release one, share out what is left over, pass half of it along, and repeat — and the answer walks in, three figures correct after four cycles.

deflection · Moment distribution Almost all of it is exactly zero. The stiffness matrix of a 2-bay, 3-storey plane frame: 36 freedoms, of which 16.2 per cent of the 36² entries are non-zero. The zeros are not small numbers; they are absences. A member reaches only the two nodes at its ends, so it can contribute nothing to any row belonging to a node it does not touch, and every such entry is zero exactly rather than nearly. The non-zeros therefore sit in a band of width 13 about the diagonal. Before the supports are applied the matrix is singular, and its null space has exactly three dimensions — the three rigid-body motions a plane frame has with respect to the ground, which is the same statement the null vector of the equilibrium matrix makes about a truss that is a mechanism, arrived at from the other end.

The matrix that replaced the hand methods

Moment distribution passes moments round a frame until they stop moving. Virtual work computes one deflection at a time. Both are exact and both stop scaling in the low tens of members. What replaced them adds no physics at all — the whole of the invention is the bookkeeping.

deflection · Stiffness method Two different structures released, and one bending moment diagram. The bending moment in a continuous beam of 8, 10, 8 m under 12 kN/m, solved twice by the force method with different redundants. The first release puts a hinge over each interior support, so the released structure is a row of simple spans and the redundants are moments. The second removes each interior support, so the released structure is one simple span of the whole length and the redundants are reactions. The two released structures have nothing in common — different shapes, different deflections, different everything — and the diagrams they produce lie on top of each other to 9e-15 of the peak moment. Which restraints are released is a choice about the arithmetic and not about the structure, which is a fact worth trusting: it means a hand calculation can pick whichever release makes the sums easiest and be sure of the answer.

Choose what to take away

The other machine for a redundant structure works by removing restraints until what is left can be solved by statics, then putting back exactly enough force to close the gaps that opened. Which restraints are removed does not change the answer at all, and changes the arithmetic completely — one choice gives a tridiagonal matrix a person can solve on paper, and another gives a full one.

deflection · Force method A force may be moved anywhere, at the price of a couple. A 80 kN force applied 250 mm off the centreline of a body, and the same force applied ON the centreline together with a couple of 20 kNm. The two systems are equivalent: they have the same resultant force and the same moment about every point in space, so no equilibrium equation written about the body can tell them apart. What they are not is the same loading — the stresses inside the body differ, and they differ over a distance of about the body's own depth. The offset is drawn to a scale that keeps the arrow on the body; the number beside it is the real one.

The moment the beam left behind

A beam reaction is drawn arriving on a column's centreline. It arrives on a cleat a hundred millimetres out from the face, and the difference is a couple that goes into the column and has to be shared between the lengths above and below it. Nothing about it appears in a frame model whose members meet at nodes.

internal-forces · Column eccentricity The moment a joint makes out of geometry. Bending stress in the chord divided by the axial stress already in it, against how far the diagonal's working line misses the node. A truss analysed as pin-jointed is drawn with its members as lines through their own centroids meeting at a point, because that is what makes the joint a pin with nothing but forces in it. A fabricated joint is not obliged to oblige, and the resultant then has a moment about the node — 16 kNm at the 60 mm drawn. It divides between the members meeting there in proportion to their rotational stiffnesses, 4EI/L or 3EI/L, which is the moment-distribution rule applied to an unbalanced moment that came from geometry rather than from load. The chord takes 48 per cent of it and carries 25 per cent of its axial stress again in bending. Ten per cent arrives at 28 mm, which on a chord of any depth is a detailing decision rather than a mistake.

The joint that is not where it was drawn

A truss is drawn as lines through the centroids of its members meeting at points. A fabricated joint is under no obligation to oblige, and when the working lines miss each other the resultant has a moment about the node that has to go somewhere.

connections · Noding eccentricity Maxwell's reciprocal theorem. A load at one point and the deflection it causes at another, against the same load moved to the second point and the deflection read at the first. Both integrals return 307.5006, and neither calculation was told about the other. The two deflected shapes are entirely different; the two readings are identical.

An influence line is a deflected shape

Finding where a load has to stand to be worst means solving the structure once for every position it could stand in. Reciprocity says the answer is a single deflected shape — release the quantity being asked about, move it by a unit, and the shape the structure takes is the influence line.

deflection · Reciprocity The answer arrives in instalments. The hogging moment at support 1 of a three-span beam, cycle by cycle. It starts at the fixed-end moment of 98.0 kNm — the value with every joint clamped — and settles at 156.9 kNm against an exact 156.9. The error falls by about a factor of four per cycle: 21.03, 5.92, 1.54, 0.60 kNm after one, two, three and four. Two cycles is an engineering answer and nobody had to invert anything.

Why it converges, and how fast

Moment distribution is an iteration, and iterations do not always converge. This one always does, at a rate the beam's own proportions fix — about a factor of four per cycle on a regular beam and considerably worse on an irregular one, which is where the method's reputation for two cycles being enough comes from and where it stops being true.

deflection · Moment distribution 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 Where the span moment and the support moment cross. Span moment and support moment against the joint's stiffness, for a 6 m beam under 30 kN/m. They move in opposite directions because they add to a constant — the simple-span 135 kN·m is fixed by statics and the joint only decides how it is split. They cross at 68 kN·m, where the joint is delivering 75 per cent of the fixed-end moment, and neither the crossing nor the fraction depends on the beam, the span or the load: it is the point where f·wL²/12 equals wL²/8 − f·wL²/12, which is f = 0.75 for every beam there has ever been.

The joint that was chosen

A joint's stiffness decides how a beam's moment divides between its span and its supports, and the two add to a constant. So there is a stiffness at which they are equal, the beam is sized by the smaller of two numbers rather than the larger of one, and the design moment is half what a simple connection leaves behind.

connections · Joint classification A portal on a stepped base — the two passes added. Bending moments on a single-bay portal with columns of 5 m and 3.5 m under one horizontal beam of 9 m, carrying 10 kN/m down and 60 kN across, with fixed bases. This frame is the two passes added. The corner moments are 5.8 and 99.1 kNm, and the short column's top carries 17.01 times what the tall one does. The diagram is drawn on the tension side of each member.

Every joint balanced, and the frame still leaning

Moment distribution enforces one equation per joint, and a frame free to translate has one more equation than it has joints. So a table that balances perfectly can describe a structure held up by a prop nobody built — and finding the prop, then removing it, is a second pass whose unknown is a distance rather than a rotation.

deflection · Moment distribution Four things a far end can be doing, and what each is worth. The rotational stiffness of a member at one end, for four conditions at the other, each drawn as the shape the member takes when the near end is rotated through one unit. They are the same expression evaluated four times — M = (2EI/L)(2θ_a + θ_b) — and the only thing that changes is what the far end is known to be doing. A held far end gives 4EI/L and carries over a half; a free one gives 3EI/L and carries over nothing; a far end rotating equally and oppositely gives 2EI/L and carries over minus one, which is what a symmetric structure does to a member crossing its axis; and a far end rotating equally and in the same sense gives 6EI/L and carries over one. None of the four is an approximation. Each removes a freedom that was going to be discovered by iteration.

Told what the far end is doing

Moment distribution discovers, cycle by cycle, that the pinned end of a beam carries no moment — a fact known before any arithmetic started. Telling it instead changes one stiffness from 4EI/L to 3EI/L and the work from thirty numbers to eight, for the identical answer. Cutting the beam on its own axis of symmetry gets it in two.

deflection · Moment distribution Every number in the table is a rotation, and none of them is a moment. The rotation contributions of a three-span beam of 8, 10, 8 m under 24 kN/m, sweep by sweep. There are six of them, one per member end, and not one is a bending moment: the moment is assembled at the end from M = FEM + 2m′ + m′ of the far end, and until that is done the table holds quantities that mean nothing on their own. That is the trade. A moment distribution stopped after two cycles hands over moments that are wrong by a known amount and can be used; this table stopped after two sweeps hands over nothing that can be read at all — and it gets there in four sweeps against Cross's own count on the same beam, writing six numbers a sweep rather than one per distributed member end plus a carry-over.

The table that cannot be read halfway

Kani's method converges at exactly the rate moment distribution does, sweep for sweep and digit for digit, because it is the same iteration. What it changes is what is written in the boxes — rotations rather than moments — and that buys a shorter table that repairs its own mistakes and cannot be stopped early.

deflection · Moment distribution The perimeter the edge leaves, and where its middle is. A 400 × 400 mm column at the edge of a 260 mm slab (d = 225 mm) carrying 12 kN/m², on a 7.2 m end span. Heavy line: the control perimeter 2d out, cut by the slab's edge — 2,614 mm, against 4,427 for the same column inside the slab. Wide band beneath it: the reduced perimeter u1 of EN 1992-1-1, 2,214 mm, its legs cut back from the edge. Open circle: the perimeter's centroid, 363 mm in from the column's centre. Filled: the load's resultant, 631 mm in, set by the slab's end moment of 170 kN·m on a shear of 269 kN — 269 mm beyond it, into the slab. The general multiplier on the shear is 1.78; u1/u1 gives 1.18 and the shortcut 1.4.

The perimeter whose middle is not the column's

At an edge column the slab's own edge cuts the control perimeter, and what is left has its centroid 363 mm inside the column's centre. The slab's end moment moves the shear's resultant inward too, by a distance that grows with the end span. What twists the perimeter is the gap between the two: nothing at a 5 m end span, enough by 7.2 m to put the check at 1.23 of its resistance where the 1.4 shortcut reads 0.97. And a bigger column makes it worse.

internal-forces · Punching shear

Named alongside it

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

Distribution factorFixed-end momentCarry-overContinuityFree bodyIndeterminacyIterationStiffness methodSuperpositionCompatibilityConvergenceDegrees of freedom

All concepts