Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Torsional stiffness — where it appears

A member's resistance to twist per radian, GJ over its length, which for an open section is two orders of magnitude below a closed one's. The gap between an open and a closed section is a factor of hundreds, which is why a slit tube is a fundamentally different member from an intact one.

Named by 4 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two centres, and the distance between them is a torque. A storey 30 by 18 m with its walls drawn heavy, pushed in one direction by 1000 kN. The force acts through the centre of mass and the storey turns about the centre of rigidity — the stiffness-weighted centroid of the walls, at x = 15.0 m — and the distance between the two is an eccentricity of 0.00 m before the 5% that has to be assumed anyway. The table below the plan splits each wall's force into its direct share and its torsional one. Torsion relieves the walls near the centre of rigidity and loads the far ones, so the wall in trouble is not the wall carrying the most: west wall is asked for 8% more than its direct share, and the walls at right angles to the push carry 19 kN each with nothing applied along them at all.

The corner that moves most

A lateral force is shared out in proportion to stiffness only if it passes through the centre of rigidity, which is not the centre of the plan and not the centre of mass. The distance between the two is a torque, and the wall that pays for it is the one furthest away and carrying least.

structures · Plan torsion 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 torsion that goes away if you let it

A spandrel beam attracts a torque in proportion to its own torsional stiffness. Crack it and the stiffness falls by a factor of four, the torque falls with it, and nothing has failed — because the floor beam it was competing with picks up exactly what was shed. A canopy hung off the same spandrel is a different animal entirely.

internal-forces · Compatibility torsion 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 What a torsional brace buys, and the stiffness it takes. The critical moment of an 8 m beam against the stiffness of a single rotational restraint at midspan — a cross-frame or a stiffened connection to a secondary beam, resisting the twist rather than the sideways movement. It climbs from an unbraced 143 kNm to the same two-half-wave plateau of 447 a lateral brace reaches, and gets to 99% of it at 253 kNm/rad. Nothing in the calculation refers to a height, which is the difference that matters: a torsional brace cannot be put on the wrong flange because it is not attached to a flange in the sense the lateral one is.

Twice the moment, four times the brace

A lateral brace has to be on the right flange and its demand is very nearly linear in the load. A torsional brace has no flange to be wrong about, and its demand is exactly quadratic — so the restraint that is indifferent to where it is attached is the one that gets expensive fastest.

stability · Beam bracing

Named alongside it

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

Compatibility torsionEquilibrium torsionRedistributionServiceabilityTorsionAccidental eccentricityBraceBracingCentre of rigidityCompression flangeCrack widthCracked section

All concepts