Equilibrium

The weight that has to be known before it can be found

Every other load arrives from outside and can be looked up. A structure's own weight depends on how big it is, and how big it is depends on the load — so the first calculation on any project is a fixed point, and the fraction of a member spent carrying itself turns out to be the square of its span as a fraction of a span it can never reach.

Assumes The load that is spread out, and the force that replaces it, Span to the fourth, which is why spans are short and The load a beam is given is a decision.

Every load in a schedule can be looked up. Somebody has measured the snow, tabulated the wind, and decided what a floor of an office is worth per square metre. One line in that schedule cannot be looked up, and it is usually the largest: the weight of the structure, which depends on the sizes, which depend on the loads, which include the weight of the structure.

That circularity is the first calculation on any project and it is not a nuisance. It has an exact solution, it converges at a rate that is itself a design quantity, and it stops converging at a span that is a property of the material.

Deflection goes as the fourth power of the spanDeflection against span for a constant load intensity and section, with two slower relationships drawn faintly behind it for comparison: the load itself, which grows in proportion to the span, and the bending moment, which grows as its square. Doubling the span multiplies the deflection by sixteen, while the moment only quadruples.11.522.533.54050100150200250300span, relative to the first16×81×256×moment: the squareload: the first powerdeflection: the fourth
Fig. 1 Why the circularity gets worse with span. Load grows in proportion to the span, moment as its square, and deflection as its fourth power — so the quantity a long member has to carry grows more slowly than the difficulty of carrying it.

Which free body produced the number

A simply supported beam of span LL and fixed depth dd, carrying an imposed load qq per metre and its own weight. Cut it at midspan. The moment there is (q+g)L2/8(q + g)L^2/8 where g=ρAg = \rho A is the self weight, ρ\rho the unit weight of the material and AA the area of the section.

The capacity of the cut is σZ\sigma Z, and for a section of a fixed proportion the modulus is Z=αAdZ = \alpha A d — for a plate girder with all its area in the flanges, α\alpha is a half; for a rolled beam, about 0.4. Setting the two equal:

σαAd=(q+ρA)L28\sigma \alpha A d = \frac{(q + \rho A) L^2}{8}

Every quantity in that equation is known except AA, which appears on both sides, and that is the whole difficulty stated in one line. Rearranged,

A=qL2/8σαdρL2/8A = \frac{qL^2/8}{\sigma\alpha d - \rho L^2/8}

The share, which is a ratio of two spans

The rearrangement contains something better than an answer. Divide the self weight by the total load and almost everything cancels:

gq+g=ρL28σαd=(LL)2,L=8αdσρ\frac{g}{q+g} = \frac{\rho L^2}{8\sigma\alpha d} = \left(\frac{L}{L^*}\right)^2, \qquad L^* = \sqrt{8\alpha\, d\, \frac{\sigma}{\rho}}

The fraction of a member’s capacity spent carrying itself is exactly the square of its span as a fraction of a limiting span. There is no imposed load in that statement, no section area, and no shape beyond the constant α\alpha. A beam at a fifth of its limiting span spends 4% of itself on itself; one at half spends a quarter; one at three quarters spends 56%; and at LL^* the denominator above is zero and no area solves the equation at all.

The limiting span is worth reading closely, because it is the geometric mean of two lengths. One is the depth, which is a decision. The other is σ/ρ\sigma/\rho, the material’s strength divided by its unit weight, which has the dimension of length and is the height of a column of the material that would crush under its own weight. For structural steel that length is about 3,500 m, for reinforced concrete in bending about 600, for structural timber about 2,800.

A 600 mm deep steel beam therefore has a limiting span of 8×0.4×0.6×3500=82\sqrt{8 \times 0.4 \times 0.6 \times 3500} = 82 m, and a concrete one of the same depth about 34 m. Neither number is a span anybody would build, and that is the point of computing them: they are the denominators that decide how badly the circularity bites at spans people do build.

What the iteration is actually doing

Nobody solves that equation as an equation. The universal practice is to guess a self weight, size the member, recompute the self weight from the size, and go round again — which is a fixed-point iteration, and its convergence ratio is the number above.

Each pass removes a fraction 1(L/L)21 - (L/L^*)^2 of the remaining error. At a fifth of the limiting span the ratio is 0.04 and one pass is exact to four figures. At half it is 0.25 and two passes suffice. At three quarters it is 0.56, each pass fixes less than half of what is left, and the sequence takes eight passes to reach a per cent — on a member that is already spending more than half its capacity on itself and would never be built.

So the practice is safe, and it is safe for a reason worth knowing rather than by luck: the iteration converges quickly exactly where the self weight is a small fraction, and it is a small fraction exactly where the span is short compared with the limiting one. The two facts are the same fact.

Chord force against truss depthThe force in a truss chord for a fixed bending moment, against the depth of the truss. The relationship is a reciprocal: the chords form a couple whose lever arm is the depth, so a shallow truss pays for it steeply.0.511.52020040060080010001200depth of the truss800500333250200the same moment, resisted by a longer lever arm
Fig. 2 The escape from the whole problem. Chord force is the moment divided by the depth, so depth buys capacity without buying much weight — which is why the limiting span above is a function of the depth and not of the material alone.

Why depth is the answer and area is not

Look again at where AA and dd enter the equation. Capacity is σαAd\sigma \alpha A d — linear in both. Self weight is ρA\rho A — linear in the area and independent of the depth.

So adding area adds capacity and weight in the same proportion, and adding depth adds capacity and almost none. That is the reason depth is the cheapest strength restated as a statement about self weight, and it is why every long-span structure ever built is deep and hollow rather than large and solid.

Length costs more than it looksThe same column section at four lengths, with the buckling capacity of each drawn as a bar. Capacity falls as the inverse square of the length, so a column three times as long carries a ninth as much.1× the length100% of the capacity2× the length25% of the capacity3× the length11% of the capacity5× the length4% of the capacityidentical section, identical material, identical end conditions
Fig. 3 The same arithmetic seen from the other side. Length is expensive and the expense is not linear, which is what makes the fixed point tighten as fast as it does.

The limit case is a structure whose whole load is its own weight, and there the argument becomes visible in a single figure.

Four times as thick, and exactly the same stressThe meridional force at the base of a 22 m dome carrying nothing but its own weight, against how thick that dome is. The force is proportional to the thickness — 17, 35, 70, 140 kN/m at 50, 100, 200, 400 mm — because the load is γt and the geometry is unchanged. The stress is that force divided by the same thickness, so it is γR/(1 + cos φ₀) with no thickness in it at all: every one of the four marked points reads 0.350 MPa. A dome under its own weight cannot be thickened into working and does not need to be, which is why an eggshell and a cathedral dome are stressed alike and why the useful question about a masonry dome is never how thick it is.0100200300400020406080100120140160thickness of the shell (mm)meridional force at the base (kN/m)0.350 MPa0.350 MPa0.350 MPa0.350 MPathe force doubleswith the thicknessthe stress does notmove at allγR/(1 + cos φ₀)
Fig. 4 A dome carrying nothing but itself. The force in it is proportional to the thickness and so is the area carrying that force, so the stress has no thickness in it at all — four times as thick, exactly the same stress.

A masonry dome under its own weight has a meridional stress of γR/(1+cosφ0)\gamma R/(1 + \cos\varphi_0): a unit weight, a radius and an angle, and nothing about how thick it is. Making it thicker adds exactly as much load as capacity and changes nothing. That is the purest available statement of the rule this essay is about — a structure cannot be thickened out of a self-weight problem, and the only variables that help are the ones that change the geometry.

The material question, which is not about strength

If a limiting span contains σ/ρ\sigma/\rho rather than σ\sigma, then the ranking of materials for long spans is a ranking on specific strength, and it is not the ranking anybody expects.

Nothing holds its placeWhere each of eight materials ranks on six performance indexs, joined so the reordering can be read. The materials are the same, their properties are the same, and the only thing that changes between columns is which quantity is being held constant and what shape is free to be chosen. High-strength steel moves three places, from 3 to 6. Timber, which is eleven times weaker than mild steel, beats it by 8.56 to one on the stiff-beam index and loses to it on the stiff-tie index — the material has not changed, the exponent has.stiffnesstiestiffnessbeamstiffnessplatestrengthtiestrengthbeamstrengthplatemild steel3–4high-strength steel3–6aluminium5–7concrete1–2timber1–2cast iron3–6carbon fibre7–8glass5–8rank on each index, best at the toprange
Fig. 5 Eight materials ranked on six indices, joined so the reordering can be read. Nothing about the materials changes between the columns; what changes is which quantity is held constant and what shape is free.

Timber is a twentieth of mild steel’s strength and a sixteenth of its weight, so on specific strength the two are within a fifth of each other — and on the stiffness-limited beam index, where the exponent on the modulus is a half rather than one, timber beats steel by 8.56 to one. Neither material moved. That is the whole content of an index: the exponent on the shape decides the ranking and the properties merely fill it in.

The same reordering is what makes the limiting-span arithmetic worth doing rather than quoting. A designer asking “what material spans furthest” has asked an incomplete question, because the answer depends on whether the span is stopped by strength, by stiffness or by buckling, and the three orderings are different.

The practical consequence for self weight is that the material with the highest limiting span is very rarely the strongest one, and that a structure whose difficulty is its own weight is being asked a question about density.

Where the weight goes afterwards

A beam’s self weight is a small problem solved once. A building’s is a running total, and the accumulation is what makes a tall structure a different kind of object.

A column is a running totalA column carrying 42 m² of floor at each of twelve levels, at 7 kN/m². Each floor adds 294 kN, so the load at the base is 3528 kN — the same tributary area counted twelve times. Nothing in the drawing changes down the height; only the number does.level 12294 kNlevel 11588 kNlevel 10882 kNlevel 91176 kNlevel 81470 kNlevel 71764 kNlevel 62058 kNlevel 52352 kNlevel 42646 kNlevel 32940 kNlevel 23234 kNlevel 13528 kN3528 kN into the foundation= 42 m² × 7 kN/m² × twelve floors
Fig. 6 A column as a running total. Nothing about the drawing changes down the height; only the number does, and the number is what decides the column at the bottom.

Every floor adds the same tributary load, so the axial force in a column grows linearly with the number of storeys above it, and the column’s own weight grows with the same count. In a steel frame that self weight is a few per cent of the total and the linearity is nearly exact. In a masonry structure it is most of the load, which is why the walls of a tall masonry building thicken toward the base in a way a steel building’s columns do not — and why a structure too tall for nothing but itself has a height limit that has no applied load in it whatever.

The form that carries its own weight for nothing

The other escape from the fixed point is not to bend at all.

The funicular polygon for five loadsThe shape a string takes under 5 point loads, with a vertex at every load and a constant horizontal component of 36.7 throughout. The end segments carry the most — 46.7 against 37.3 in the flattest one — because they are steepest.1012141210H = 36.7, the same at every stationeach vertex is a load; each slope is the running vertical sum ÷ H
Fig. 7 The shape a string takes under a set of loads, with a vertex at every load and a constant horizontal component throughout. A structure of this shape carries the load in pure tension.

A cable or an arch of the funicular shape carries its load axially. Axial capacity is σA\sigma A rather than σαAd/L\sigma \alpha A d/L, which is larger by roughly L/(αd)L/(\alpha d) — a factor of forty on an ordinary beam and several hundred on a long one. That is the entire reason long spans are cables and arches rather than beams, and it is a statement about self weight rather than about elegance.

A three-pinned arch, rise 16 on span 60A three-pinned arch under a uniform load. One moment equation about the crown hinge gives a horizontal thrust of 168.75, with no stiffness and no assumption about the section. The thrust line lands on the axis everywhere, so there is no bending anywhere in the arch.crown hinge — no moment here, by constructionH = 168.8H = 168.8180.0180.0thrust line and axis coincide — the definition of funicular
Fig. 8 A three-pinned arch under a uniform load, with the thrust from one moment equation about the crown hinge. The thrust line lands on the axis everywhere, so there is no bending anywhere in the arch.

The catch is that the funicular shape depends on the load, and a structure whose dominant load is its own weight has a shape decided by itself — which is a fixed point again, one level up. A hanging chain finds it by hanging; an arch has to be given it, and is given it by drawing the chain and inverting it.

The further it deflects, the harder it pulls backTotal load against midspan sag for a 400 m cable of 1000 mm² prestressed to 500 kN, carrying 5 kN/m. The cubic H³ − T₀H² − w²L²EA/24 = 0 was bisected at every point of the curve, so the sag at the full 2000 kN is 31.606 m rather than the 200.000 m the flat-cable formula WL/8T₀ gives — the straight dashed line, which is the tangent to this curve at the origin and nothing more. Its slope is the initial stiffness 8T₀/L = 10.0 kN/m; at the marked point the tangent has reached 169.8 kN/m, 16.98 times as stiff, and the horizontal component of the tension has risen from 500 kN to 3164 kN. Nothing about the steel changed. The geometry got better at the job.0501001502000500100015002000midspan sag (m)total load on the cable (kN)the design load, 2000 kNsolved 31.606 m200.000 mtangent here 169.8 kN/mk₀ = 8T₀/L = 10.0 kN/mthe flat-cable law
Fig. 9 A four-hundred-metre cable, where the self weight is the load. The sag under full load is a sixth of what the flat-cable formula predicts, because the geometry stiffened as it deflected.

The one place the fixed point is not benign

There is a class of structure where the iteration above genuinely does not settle quickly, and it is not the long-span roof anybody would expect.

It is the very lightly loaded one. The share (L/L)2(L/L^*)^2 is a fraction of the total load, so it says nothing about whether the imposed load is large. A member carrying almost no imposed load is a member almost all of whose load is itself, and its size is decided by a quantity that depends on its size with nothing external to anchor it.

Two familiar cases: a long-span roof over an unoccupied volume, where the imposed load is snow and maintenance access and the structure is most of what it carries; and a mast, a tower or a bridge pylon, where the applied load is a wind pressure on a very small area and the weight of the thing is the design case.

In both, small changes in the assumed section move the answer, and the sequence of sizes a designer walks through is genuinely a sequence rather than a correction. It is also where the choice of form stops being an aesthetic decision. A structure whose own weight is its principal load is a structure whose form has been chosen by that weight — which is why long-span roofs converge on shells, cables and arches from every direction, in every material, in every century.

Where the model stops

The section is not similar to itself at every size. The constant α\alpha in the derivation assumes a family of sections with the same proportions, and real sections do not scale that way — plate thicknesses come in steps, webs have to be thick enough not to buckle, and a very large member is a plate girder with a different α\alpha from a small rolled beam.

Nothing here is a stability check. Everything above compares a moment with a section capacity, and a member long enough for its self weight to matter is nearly always governed by something else first — lateral buckling, deflection, or a vibration limit. The limiting spans computed above are therefore ceilings that nothing reaches, and their value is as denominators rather than as limits.

Self weight is not only the structure. Screed, finishes, services, ceilings, façade and partitions are dead load too, they are frequently larger than the frame, and none of them participates in the fixed point because none of them depends on the size of the frame. That is a useful asymmetry: the part of the dead load that is circular is usually the smaller part.

A strength that is a property of the specimenNominal strength against size for geometrically similar specimens of one material. On the left the specimen is too small for a crack to run and the strength is a plateau — a plastic limit, and the regime laboratory specimens sit in. On the right a crack releases more energy than it consumes as soon as it starts and the strength falls as the inverse square root of size, which is the regime real structures sit in. The turn happens at D₀ = 120 mm. A 150 mm specimen reads 2.80 N/mm² and a 3000 mm member of the same material carries 0.82: the test overestimates the structure by a factor of 3.40.10321003161000316201234size (mm, logarithmic)nominal strength (N/mm²)the specimen: 2.80the structure: 0.82the plastic limitfracture mechanicsthe test overestimates by 3.40× · D₀ = 120 mm
Fig. 10 The other way size punishes a structure. Nominal strength falls with size for geometrically similar specimens, so the material a large member is made of is weaker than the one that was tested.

What the picture cannot show

The equation at the top treats self weight as a load applied to a finished structure. It is not applied to anything; it is present from the first moment a member exists, which on a construction site is before the structure exists.

That distinction has consequences no static calculation contains. A beam carries its own weight while it is being lifted, at supports that are not its final ones. A concrete slab carries wet concrete on formwork that carries it to props that carry it to a slab poured a week earlier. A cantilevered bridge carries a self weight that grows segment by segment, and the moment diagram at the end of construction is not the one the finished structure would have. The structure that was never complete is about exactly that, and self weight is the only load that is present in every one of those states.

Nor does the picture show that self weight is the one load whose magnitude the designer chooses. Every other line in the schedule is imposed by the world. This one is an output of the design fed back as an input, and the good designs are the ones that notice.

The generalisation

The habit worth carrying is about which quantities in a design are free and which are not.

A structural calculation looks like a function from loads to sizes. Self weight makes it a function of itself, and the general treatment of such a thing is to ask two questions: does it converge, and how fast. Both answers here are the same number, (L/L)2(L/L^*)^2, and that number is a ratio of a span to a length made out of a depth and a material property.

The pattern recurs whenever a structure’s own response changes the demand on it. Second-order effects are the same shape of problem — a deflection that increases the moment that produced it — and they converge by the same kind of geometric series, with P/PcrP/P_{cr} in the place of (L/L)2(L/L^*)^2. Ponding is the same again with rainwater doing the work. In each case there is a ratio below one for which the sequence closes, a value at which it does not, and a designer whose first estimate is the first term of a series nobody wrote down.

Knowing that the series exists is most of the benefit. It turns “add something for self weight” into an arithmetic with a convergence rate, and it says exactly when the estimate can be made once and when it cannot be made at all.

Named alongside this one

Essays reaching for the same objects. Nobody chose these; they are what the concept index makes visible.

The objects this essay names

Each one links to every other essay that touches it.

Dead loadDeflectionFixed point iterationFunicularLimiting spanLoad pathMaterial indexMembrane actionSecond moment of areaSection modulusSelf weightSize effectSpan scalingSpecific strengthTributary area