Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Generator

The depth is decided by how far it moves, not by what it can carry

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.
The depth is decided by how far it moves, not by what it can carry. A column carrying 6000 kN landing 3 m into a 12 m transfer member. The free body is the member itself, cut under the column: M = P·a(L − a)/L = 13500 kNm, with 4500 kN of shear on one side of the cut and 1500 on the other. At an allowable stress that moment asks for 1.94 m of depth — the dashed outline — and keeping the settlement it causes inside the floors' own bending asks for 2.55 m, which is the member drawn solid. 31% more depth is bought by nothing the strength calculation can see. The depth grows as √(P·a), so four times the load is exactly twice the depth, and depth in a transfer member is a storey nobody occupies.

The depth is decided by how far it moves, not by what it can carry. A column carrying 6000 kN landing 3 m into a 12 m transfer member. The free body is the member itself, cut under the column: M = P·a(L − a)/L = 13500 kNm, with 4500 kN of shear on one side of the cut and 1500 on the other. At an allowable stress that moment asks for 1.94 m of depth — the dashed outline — and keeping the settlement it causes inside the floors' own bending asks for 2.55 m, which is the member drawn solid. 31% more depth is bought by nothing the strength calculation can see. The depth grows as √(P·a), so four times the load is exactly twice the depth, and depth in a transfer member is a storey nobody occupies.

3 essays call transfer-structure. 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.

The depth is decided by how far it moves, not by what it can carry. A column carrying 6000 kN landing 3 m into a 12 m transfer member. The free body is the member itself, cut under the column: M = P·a(L − a)/L = 13500 kNm, with 4500 kN of shear on one side of the cut and 1500 on the other. At an allowable stress that moment asks for 1.94 m of depth — the dashed outline — and keeping the settlement it causes inside the floors' own bending asks for 2.55 m, which is the member drawn solid. 31% more depth is bought by nothing the strength calculation can see. The depth grows as √(P·a), so four times the load is exactly twice the depth, and depth in a transfer member is a storey nobody occupies. Structural form

The column that stops

A load path that runs straight to the ground costs almost nothing. Interrupting one costs depth in proportion to the square root of the load times the distance it is moved — and the interruption's own deflection becomes the settlement of everything standing on it.

 Three ways to move the same column, and they are not close. The same 2000 kN moved 3 m across 14 m, built three ways and drawn to one scale. The deep beam is 1.14 m of concrete, 24.1 tonnes, and settles 60.6 mm in the long term. The storey-deep truss takes the same moment as a couple at 3.6 m centres, so its chords carry M/h and it weighs 2.6 tonnes — a fifth of the beam — while settling 15.8 mm, and it does not creep. The wall is 72.8 tonnes and hardly moves at all, 1.71 mm, of which 36% is shear rather than bending — which is what a member as deep as it is long always does, and is why beam theory does not describe one. A wall as a deep beam is the stiffest of the three by a factor of 35.4. Structural form

The same span, four ways

A beam, a truss, an arch and a cable can all cross the same gap under the same load, and the choice between them is usually described as a matter of judgement or of taste. It is neither. Each carries the load by a different mechanism, each mechanism has a different exponent, and an exponent decides the ordering at every span rather than at some spans.

 A tie is worth all of itself and a strut is not, which is worth nine per cent. The same 20 floors carried two ways, with every member drawn at the width its own force requires. Hung, the loads accumulate upward, so the largest hanger is at the top: 18.0 MN at 355 N/mm² with no buckling reduction of any kind. On columns they accumulate downward and the largest column is at the bottom, at the same force — but every column above it is understressed by its own slenderness, worst at the top where a 900 kN column still has to be 4.8 × 10³ mm² to reach χ = 0.529. Over the height the hangers total 0.002 m³ of steel against 0.002: a saving of 9.0 per cent, which is the average χ and nothing else. Structural form

Hung from the top, and nine per cent lighter

A tie is worth its full strength and a strut is not, so hanging the floors of a building from a hat truss ought to be an obvious economy. It is a real one, it is measurable, and it is nine per cent of the steel — shrinking as the building gets taller, which is the opposite of what the argument sounds like.

The library, page 6 of 7 — where transfer-structure sits