Generator

Strength at an angle, and the straight line that is not it

Rendered here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it — which is the same list as the blast radius of changing it.

Strength at an angle, and the straight line that is not it. Compressive strength against the angle between the load and the grain. Hankinson's formula — f₀f₉₀ ÷ (f₀sin²α + f₉₀cos²α) — is an interpolation rather than a failure theory, and what makes it worth having is how far it sits from the straight line anyone would otherwise draw between 21 and 2.5 N/mm². At forty-five degrees it gives 4.5 N/mm² against the line's 11.8: 38 per cent of it, and 21 per cent of the strength along the grain. The curve drops away in the first twenty degrees because the weak direction starts governing as soon as it has any component at all, which is the same arithmetic as a section's weak axis and the reason a skewed bearing detail is a real loss rather than a small one.

Strength at an angle, and the straight line that is not it. Compressive strength against the angle between the load and the grain. Hankinson's formula — f₀f₉₀ ÷ (f₀sin²α + f₉₀cos²α) — is an interpolation rather than a failure theory, and what makes it worth having is how far it sits from the straight line anyone would otherwise draw between 21 and 2.5 N/mm². At forty-five degrees it gives 4.5 N/mm² against the line's 11.8: 38 per cent of it, and 21 per cent of the strength along the grain. The curve drops away in the first twenty degrees because the weak direction starts governing as soon as it has any component at all, which is the same arithmetic as a section's weak axis and the reason a skewed bearing detail is a real loss rather than a small one.

4 essays call grain-strength. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this generator changes every one of these figures.

Strength at an angle, and the straight line that is not it. Compressive strength against the angle between the load and the grain. Hankinson's formula — f₀f₉₀ ÷ (f₀sin²α + f₉₀cos²α) — is an interpolation rather than a failure theory, and what makes it worth having is how far it sits from the straight line anyone would otherwise draw between 21 and 2.5 N/mm². At forty-five degrees it gives 4.5 N/mm² against the line's 11.8: 38 per cent of it, and 21 per cent of the strength along the grain. The curve drops away in the first twenty degrees because the weak direction starts governing as soon as it has any component at all, which is the same arithmetic as a section's weak axis and the reason a skewed bearing detail is a real loss rather than a small one.

The material that has a direction

Every material in this collection so far has had one modulus and one strength. Timber has three of each, differing by more than an order of magnitude, and the consequence is not a correction to steel design — it is a different set of checks with a different one governing.

Three lines through one point, and three different winners. Modulus against density on logarithmic axes, with a guide line for each of three indices drawn through mild steel. A performance index E^(1/n)/ρ is a straight line of slope n on these axes, so ranking materials by it means sliding the line up and to the left and seeing what it leaves behind. The three lines have three different orders, which is why a table of properties cannot answer the question on its own: for a tie the answer is carbon fibre, for a beam it is timber at 4.28 times steel, and for a plate timber wins by more still. The construction is Ashby's; the arithmetic on it is this site's.

The ranking belongs to the load case

Every table of material properties ever printed ranks by strength, and every one of them answers a question nobody asked. What a structure wants is the least mass for a stated performance, and the combination of properties that gives it changes with the shape of the member — so timber beats steel four to one as a beam and loses to it as a tie, without either material changing.

$Steel has a third direction and it is not as good. Through-thickness strain demand against weld size, on a 30 mm plate, with the ductility the plate can supply in each of its three directions drawn across it. Rolling stretches the plate's inclusions into flat stringers, so a bar cut along the rolling direction, one cut across it and one cut THROUGH it are three different specimens of one steel — 60, 45 and 15 per cent reduction of area, which converts exactly to a true fracture strain of ln(1/(1 − Z)): 0.916, 0.598 and 0.163. A factor of four in the reported percentage is 5.6 in the strain the material can take. The demand goes as the deposited area over the square of the thickness, so doubling the weld size quadruples it: the 12 mm throat drawn asks for 5.4 per cent, which an ordinary plate supplies and a plate with a bad inclusion cluster does not.$ Connections

The direction a plate was never tested in

A rolled plate is not one material. Rolling stretches its inclusions into flat stringers lying in the plane, so a bar cut along it, one cut across it and one cut through it are three different specimens of one steel — and every mill certificate reports the first.

A short timber beam is a shear problem, and a steel one never is. Utilisation of the bending and shear checks on one beam, against span-to-depth. The two cross where the ratio equals f_m ÷ f_v exactly — no load, no width and no span survives the cancellation — which for this timber is 6.7 and for steel is 1.73. So a timber beam shallower than about six times its depth is governed by shear parallel to the grain, and a steel beam would have to be shorter than twice its own depth before the same thing happened, which is not a beam. The third check is bearing across the grain, which does not move with the span at all: on the beam drawn it is at 0.40, and it is the one that governs.

Sections and stress

The shear that decides a timber beam

A steel beam is never governed by shear, because its bending strength is only 1.73 times its shear strength and no beam is that short. Timber's ratio is 6.7 along the grain and 23 across it, so shear governs at proportions people build every day.

The library, page 2 of 7 — where grain-strength sits