Generator

A strength that is a property of the specimen

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.

A strength that is a property of the specimen. Nominal 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 100 mm specimen reads 3.10 N/mm² and a 1500 mm member of the same material carries 1.14: the test overestimates the structure by a factor of 2.71.

10 essays call size-effect. 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.

Materials

The bigger one is the weaker one

Two geometrically similar beams of the same concrete should fail at the same nominal stress, because a strength is supposed to be a material property. They do not. The large one fails at less, and the reason is that a crack releases energy in proportion to a volume and consumes it in proportion to an area.

$The characteristic strength, which nothing was measured at. A lognormal population of strengths with a mean of 30 N/mm² and a coefficient of variation of 0.15. The characteristic value is the 5% fractile — 23.2 N/mm², which is 77% of the mean, and which need not be the strength of any specimen that was tested. Dividing it by 1.50 gives 15.5, and the shaded sliver below that is the fraction of the population that would fail to reach it: 6.4e-6, or one in 155,818. A factor applied to a fractile is not covering the scatter, because the scatter has already been spent getting to the fractile.$ Materials

The strength no specimen had

A material property is written into a calculation as a number, and a material does not have one. It has a population of strengths with a mean and a spread, and the number used is a low fractile of that population — a value that need not have been measured, that most of the material exceeds, and whose distance below the mean is decided entirely by the scatter.

The middle third, computed. The kern of a 300 × 600 mm rectangle, computed by asking, for every direction, how far the resultant can move before the far face would be pulled. It reaches ±100.0 mm vertically and ±50.0 mm horizontally, which are h/6 and b/6 exactly, and the region between is a rhombus rather than the ellipse the two numbers suggest — a resultant on a diagonal has less room than either axis allows.

Materials

The strength thrown away on purpose

Masonry, concrete and soil are all analysed as though they had no tensile strength whatever. Each of them has some. The decision to set it to zero is the single most consequential modelling assumption in the subject, it is safe for one kind of check and unsafe for another, and almost nothing that uses it says which.

A base plate, and when the bolts start working. A 500 × 500 mm plate carrying 600 kN and 180 kN·m, so the resultant sits 300 mm from the centre against a kern of 83.33 mm. The plate is in bolts engaged: bearing over 150.88 mm at a peak of 20 N/mm², with the holding-down bolts carrying 154.42 kN. The plate lifts at 50 kN·m and crushes at 126 kN·m, and the bolts are not needed until 150 kN·m.

Connections

The failure that is in the concrete

An anchor bolt is a steel component and its capacity is usually decided by something else entirely — a cone of concrete pulled out around it, failing in tension, in a material every other calculation on the project has assumed cannot take tension at all. The exponent in the capacity says so: it is not the square the geometry implies.

A strength with no mechanism in it, made of four. The shear a member carries with no links in it, split into the mechanisms that carry it, against the member's effective depth on a logarithmic axis. The three bands are calibrated to Taylor's measured shares at one 300 mm × 500 mm member and are then evaluated everywhere else, so the shape of the total is a prediction. Aggregate interlock is the band that dies: it depends on how tightly the crack faces are held together, crack width grows with member depth, and it falls from 62% of a shallow member's strength to 22% of a deep one's. That decay is the whole of the size effect, and the dashed line is the design code's fitted k = 1 + √(200/d), which knows nothing about interlock and falls by a factor of 1.52 where the model falls by 2.05 over the same twentyfold range. Dowel action is why the expression contains the flexural reinforcement ratio, which nothing in a truss analogy would predict.

Internal forces

The strength with no mechanism in it

A concrete member with no links in it carries shear, and the expression that says how much is three variables raised to fitted powers with a size term in front. There is no free body anywhere in it. What it is fitting is a competition between four things that carry shear across a crack, and only one of them explains why a deeper member is worse at it.

$Ten decades of time for forty per cent of the strength. Strength as a fraction of the five-minute test value, against the length of time the load is held, over 12 decades of seconds. The relation is a straight line on this axis, which is the reason a single duration factor works at all: every decade of time costs about the same amount of strength. A load held for 60 years leaves 59% of the short-term strength, and the member need not have moved — this is not creep, and it is not fatigue, because nothing about the load varies. It is that a static stress slowly breaks fibres. The curve has an asymptote at 18% that nobody quotes: below about a fifth of its short-term strength a member has no time to failure at all, so there is a stress under which duration stops being a question rather than merely becoming a small one.$ Materials

The load that was left on too long

A timber beam that carries a load for fifty years fails at about fifty-nine per cent of the stress the same beam carries for five minutes in a testing machine. Nothing about the load varies, the member need not have deflected, and the relation between the two is a straight line on a logarithmic time axis over ten decades.

The steel that is sized by the concrete. Ultimate moment of a 1000 × 400 mm section against the area of tension steel in it, with the moment that cracks the section drawn across. The cracking moment is 77.2 kNm and contains no steel at all — it is f_ctm times the gross section modulus, 2.90 N/mm² times bh²/6 — so it is a horizontal line, and every section to the left of where the two meet is one whose first crack is its failure. The crossing is at 507 mm², and rearranging the two expressions gives 0.245·(f_ctm/f_yk)·bd against the 0.26 the codes print — the constant is a section modulus divided by a lever arm and not a fitted number. The rule as printed asks for 538 mm² here, which is 6% more than the derivation needs, and that margin is the whole of the safety in a check whose failure mode is sudden.

Sections and stress

The steel the concrete asks for

Every other bar in a concrete member is there because of an action. This one is there because of the member itself — enough steel that the cracked section can carry more than the moment that cracked it, so that the first crack is not also the failure. The requirement contains no load, and both of its consequences run the wrong way round.

$The strength that does not keep pace. Concrete's mean tensile strength against its characteristic compressive strength, with the ratio of the two on the same axis, scaled. The tensile strength goes as f_ck^⅔, so it rises from 1.57 to 5.04 N/mm² over a sixfold rise in the compressive strength, and the ratio between them falls from 11.1% at C20 to 6.0% at C80 — a factor of 1.83. Nothing in a bending or a column calculation ever uses the lower curve, and everything that decides a transition does: when the section cracks, how much minimum steel it needs, how far a bar has to be lapped, what a member without links carries. So a stronger concrete needs more minimum reinforcement, longer laps and a bigger crack-control check, in a member whose ultimate capacity has barely moved. Its real scale is a length: E·G_F/f_ct² is 299 mm here, which is the size at which a member stops behaving plastically and starts behaving like a fracture problem.$ Materials

The strength that is never used

Concrete's tensile strength appears in no bending calculation, no column calculation and no shear calculation with links in it. The whole design philosophy is that it cracks and the steel takes over. And it decides where nearly every transition in the subject sits — when a section cracks, how much minimum steel it needs, how far a bar has to be lapped, what a member without links can carry, and how wide a crack opens.

$The ductility number depends on the ruler. Elongation after fracture against the gauge length it was measured over, in units of √S₀. A tensile specimen extends uniformly until the ultimate load and then localises into a neck, so the total is a strain (16 per cent here) plus a length (7.2 mm), and dividing a length by the gauge length is what makes the curve fall. At the two standard gauges the same steel reports 27.5 per cent over 5.65√S₀ and 21.8 over 11.3√S₀ — a ratio of 1.264, and 42 per cent of the first number is a property of the specimen rather than of the material.$ Materials

The ductility that depends on the ruler

Percentage elongation after fracture is the most quoted ductility measure in the subject and one of the least well defined. A specimen stretches uniformly until the ultimate load and then localises, so the number is a strain plus a length — and dividing a length by the gauge length makes the answer a property of the specimen.

$Independence, and the floor it never goes below. The reduction factor a column is allowed, two ways. The Eurocode storey rule falls to 0.70 and stops. The independence argument — n bays each with a mean and a standard deviation, summed — gives (1 + zv/√n)/(1 + zv), which falls faster and stops at 0.503: a floor with no n in it at all, decided only by how variable the load is and how far out the fractile is drawn. The mean is never reduced away, because every bay really does carry its mean. At ten storeys the two differ by 10.0 points.$ Equilibrium

The load that is never all there at once

A column at the bottom of twenty storeys is designed for the imposed load of twenty floors added up, and twenty floors do not reach their own worst day together. The reduction that follows is not a discount on the safety margin. It is the central limit theorem, and it has a floor it never goes below.

The library, page 5 of 7 — where size-effect sits