×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

(OP)
Hi Everyone,

I am a graduate structural engineer who uses a wide array of software day-to-day in the design of structures and structural elements. Some designs require me to design members of non-standard shapes e.g. parallel flange channel with unequal flange lengths. In the aforementioned example, the principle axes become rotated relative to the global axes and hence when calculating geometric properties such as the plastic section modulus, locating the plastic centroid of said shape becomes a lot more involved. My question is twofold:

1. My only guess in attempting to solve for the plastic centroid for a non-symmetric shape about a single axis is to firstly determine the orientation of the principal axes and then incrementally guess where the plastic centroid may lie vertically and horizontally. Once areas above and below the rotated neutral axis (relative to the global axes) are equated we have a solution as to where the plastic centroid lies. Can anyone offer an insight as to whether or not what I just described is indeed a sound method or algorithm in attempting to calculate the plastic centroid of any non-symmetric shape?

2. Calculating additional properties such as the Torsion and Warping constants appear to be far more involved and, admittedly, go right over my head. Where there are no published solutions for torsion and warping constants for obscure shapes (Roark's) I turn to programs like Strand7, IES Shapebuilder or other general packages that calculate the geometric properties for me. I first and foremost acknowledge that I may be treading into the realm of computational programming but I thought I would ask those in the loop how these programs are able to do this. In the examples of software I list above they both create a mesh within the outline of the shape comprised of either small triangles or quadrilaterals. How does meshing within a region allow a computer to calculate a) simple properties like area, second moment of area, elastic and plastic section moduli and b) more complex properties like torsion and warping constants?

As always, I turn to these forums as I have not been able to find the answer to these questions on my own by either researching my online university database, google searches or other asking other, more experienced engineers. If anyone knows of thesis papers, textbooks or other sources that discuss these topics in either structural mechanics or computational programming feel free to include a link or reference that I can follow up on.

Thank you in advance.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

I have never used plastic centroids, but it is important to define what you mean by a specific property. The attached link defines plastic centroid in a way which does not appear to take into account a change in direction of the principle axes. Does that agree with your definition?

http://www.egr.msu.edu/~harichan/classes/ce405/cha...

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

A1) Your method sounds reasonable so long as you actually know how to calculate the plastic principle axes. I don't. Another option might be to do the same thing but as a two step process, using the geometrical axes (or whichever orthogonal axes are convenient). Scan the y-axis to get the vertical location and then the x-axis to get the horizontal.

A2) It's often more than just a mesh; it's a true finite element analysis run. I stumbled into this when attempting to write a spreadsheet that would find the shear center of an arbitrary cross section, including muti-cellular sections. I even purchased an arcane book on torsion from Germany by a fellow named Kollbrunner in order to find my solution. It turns our that there is no closed form solution. FEM is the only way to tackle it. Basically, the FEM solution solves the differential equations that are at the heart of the Prandtl membrane analogy.

I'm not sure which section properties do and do not require FEM for their determination. FEM is probably over kill for things like area and centroid with any section. However, if you're attempting to create a general solver for arbitrary sections that may be open, composite, multi-cellular -- or all three -- things get complicated pretty fast. You start having to code in complex ray casting functions etc just so that your algorithm can "know" when an element is inside or outside of the cross section.

There's a fellow on this forum known by the handle IDS. He's a programming wiz and is interested in a lot of things like this. He's even got a website set up where you can download a bunch of his spreadsheets. I'd recommend searching this site for some of his threads. Last we spoke, he was working on a general solver for bi-axial bending + axial in prestressed cellular bridge decks. Yeah.

Here are some documents from my adventures that might interest you:

1) My Mathcad spreadsheet that was meant to be a general purpose section calculator (Link). It's based on surveying style formulas that calculate easily and take corner point coordinates for input. That part of it is pretty slick. Ironically, I stopped at working out the plastic section properties. I expected that to be easier than elastic properties but it wasn't at all.

2) The surveying style formulas for area and centroid: Link

3) The supervening style formulas for moment of inertia: Link


The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Coincidentally, I have just updated my section properties spreadsheet, which can be downloaded from:
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/se...

This won't do much to help with your queries though, as it deals only with elastic section properties.

As KootK mentioned above, I have also posted on finding the neutral axis for a reinforced (or prestressed) concrete section under biaxial bending:

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/fa...

The calculation is for the ultimate bending strength of a concrete section, which uses a rectangular stress block for the concrete, and bi-linear for the steel. It should be fairly simple to modify the code to make it suitable for steel design. I'll have a look at it when I have time, but that probably won't be for some time. Feel free to ask questions if you want to have a go yourself. The main difference from steel design is that the concrete in tension is ignored, and the compression block does not extend to the NA.

Regarding torsion of irregular sections, I don't think there is any universal simple approach. I have also used Strand7 for this purpose, and I think it does a good job. I think the easiest way to automate the process would be to use Strand7 with the API (or any FEA program with equivalent facilities), and you could then set up data entry and output on a spreadsheet.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Is plastic centroid unique to a particular shape? Where is the plastic centroid of an equal leg angle? Of an unequal leg angle? Of an unsymmetrical Z section?

The attached article shows calculations for the strength of an equal leg angle under biaxial bending, but the term "plastic centroid" was not used anywhere in the article.

http://www.academia.edu/7854300/Full_plastic_capac...

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Maybe, for a steel shape, the plastic centroid is the same as the centroid, i.e. the c.g. of the area. That would certainly simplify calculations.

One thing for sure, if you can't define what you mean by the plastic centroid, you'll never be able to find where it is.

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

BA - the definition of the plastic centroid in your first link looks correct, it's the point that has an equal area either side of the two perpendicular axes through the point. In general it won't be the same point as the elastic centroid. That seems to be the definition used in the OP as well.

I couldn't open your second link.

The procedure used in my RC spreadsheet (which should work for steel as well, with appropriate adjustment of material properties) is:

- Assume a Neutral Axis angle
- Find the neutral axis position such that the resultant force is equal to the applied axial load. For steel with zero axial load this could be reduced to finding the position such that the section area above and below the axis are equal.
- Take moments about the global axes (or whatever axes the applied moments are defined for)
- Adjust the neutral axis angle and repeat until the reaction moments are close enough to the applied moments.

So you don't actually need the plastic centroid position, just the Neutral Axis position and angle.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Do you mean the plastic neutral axis, where the area in tension and compression is the same? Thus allowing you to calculate the plastic section modulus?

I can see how this would get complicated for a doubly-unsymmetric section...

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Doug, when you said you couldn't open my second link, I thought maybe I had made a mistake in spelling or something, but I tried it again and it works fine for me. Is anyone else having trouble opening my second link?

Doug, in your program for biaxial bending in a concrete column, the neutral axis location is not strictly a property of the shape. It is also a property of the loading. That is why I am wondering if the plastic centroid of a steel section is a unique property of the steel shape or is variable depending on the loading.

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

BA - The 2nd download worked this time. I'll have a read and respond later.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Quote (BA)


The attached article shows calculations for the strength of an equal leg angle under biaxial bending, but the term "plastic centroid" was not used anywhere in the article.

http://www.academia.edu/7854300/Full_plastic_capac...

I indicated earlier that the plastic centroid was not mentioned in the article. Actually, it is...in the Appendix (see A13 for the expression for an equal leg angle). So this suggests that the plastic centroid is a property of the section, irrespective of the loading, contrary to what I was suggesting in an earlier post.

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

The plastic centroid (as defined in the paper) is the intersection of perpendicular axes dividing the section into four equal areas, so it is a property of the section. For a section subject to bending about a principal axis with zero axial load the neutral axis will be coincident with the plastic principal axis, but for any other loading it may not be, but this is the same as for elastic analysis.

I think a point worth making is that in general for bending about a non-principal axis the neutral axis will not be parallel to the axis of bending. As far as I know for a non-symmetrical section the only way to find the NA position and angle is by iterative calculation of the reaction force and moments until they are in equilibrium with the applied loads.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Maybe you know this IDS: if one rotated the axes of consideration arbitrarily, would the location of the plastic centroid always remain the same?

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

KootK.  I cannot prove it readily, but I very strongly suspect that the answer to your question is "no".  With considerably less confidence, I suspect that for the location of the plastic centroid to be the same regardless of the orientation of the reference axes the section must be doubly symmetric.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Managed to get a few minutes to return to the question of the "axis independency" of the location of the plastic centroid.  All I need to disprove the independency is one example, and there is a simple example readily to hand:  an equilateral triangle.  Take one side as the "base".  The height of the plastic centroid above the base does not equal the height of the conventional centroid above the base.  QED.

This result is not all that surprising, as the plastic centroid has a few other oddities.  Start with a standard I-beam.  Reduce the web thickness until it is vanishingly thin.  Where is the plastic centroid now?  It is undefined, as it can be anywhere along the line where the web used to be.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Thanks for helping me out with this Denial. However, your first paragraph doesn't prove that the location of the plastic centroid is axis independent. It only proves that the elastic and plastic centroids are not, in general, the same. Am I missing something?

Your point with the vanishing web is an interesting one. Perhaps one has to restrict the conversation to contiguous sections in order for it to have meaning.

This is an embarrassing question to have to ask but, is the elastic centroid axis independent? I've always assumed so but I really don't know how to prove or even rationalize that.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

KootK,

If h is the height of the equilateral triangle and b is the base, the plastic centroid occurs at h/√2 down from the apex when the axis considered is perpendicular to the base.

When we shift 60 degrees, the new location for the plastic centroid is h/√2 down from the apex but it's a different apex, so not the same point. In order for it to be the same point, it would have to be at the centroid of the area, namely 2h/3 down from the top.

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

@BA: I get it now, thanks for the push.

@Denial: your example is brilliant. Sadly, you left me with one deductive leap to make and I failed.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

KootK.  Thanks for the compliment, but it took me an embarrassingly long time to come up with that simple example.  I was exhausting my brain playing around with complex shapes, when I should have homed in much faster on the simple one.

You ask about axis-independence for the elastic centroid. The answer is "yes".  By way of partial proof I offer the following.  If you take any arbitrary section defined relative to any arbitrary set of Cartesian axes, you can calculate a centroid relative to those axes.  If you then do what any structural engineer would do and transform things so that everything is relative to the principal axes, the centroid is in the same position.  If that applies to one set of arbitrary starting axes it applies to all starting axes.  QED again.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Precise language, deductive reasoning, Spartan level of detail, Latin TLA... You must have some training / interest in logic. CS major turned CE?

I also believe that the answer is yes. However, at the risk of being the dope who was roped twice this afternoon, I'm going to challenge your latest proof. You have stated that the centroid is in the same location for both sets of axes without any justification for why that is the case. Please revise and resubmit.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

No.  You weren't roped in on this one*.  I used the expression "partial proof" quite deliberately, aware of the small gap in what I put forward, and hoping to get away with it.  Naïve of me, well spotted by you.  It is an assumption that underpins beam-bending theory, one that 101% of the structural engineers this side of Alpha Centauri  take for granted every day, but I cannot ever recall seeing it proved.

I do not have a ready proof available.  I suspect that there will be at least two approaches to the proof, a simple one involving logic and a harder one involving some form of vector calculus. I'll try to put brain into gear and pencil to paper over the weekend.

*Terminating my earlier proof one step before the end was intentional (as you had guessed).  It had taken me a while to convince myself of the validity of that final step, and I wanted to "share the joy". BAretired has expressed it more clearly and concisely than I would have been able to do.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

I'm not sure what is to be proved. The elastic centroid is a single point in two dimensional space. A point can be measured in any co-ordinate system, but it's location remains the same irrespective of the co-ordinate system used.

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Without Denial's negative proof, we could say the same of the plastic centroid. Just because the point doesn't shift with a rotation of axes does't meant that the point actually is the centroid for that new set of axes. I'm sure that it is; I just don't know how to prove it.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

You cannot say the same about the plastic centroid because the plastic centroid is not always a single point. In those cases where it is a single point, it makes no difference which co-ordinate system is used, the plastic centroid remains the same.

The centroid of a cross section can be found using any co-ordinate system and, for any cross section is always a single invariant point.

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Quote (BAretired)

The centroid of a cross section can be found using any co-ordinate system and, for any cross section is always a single invariant point.

This is the supposition that we're trying to prove BA. We can't start with it as a given.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Okay, you are going back to elementary theory where we consider the definition of center of gravity of an area.

Using cartesian co-ordinates, X = ∑(x.da)/∑da and Y = ∑(y.da)/∑da where X and Y are the position of the c.g. of the section, da is an elemental area and x, y are co-ordinates of each element, da.

All dimensions are taken from an arbitrary zero point. The result, X, Y represent a point in two dimensional space and can be represented by any system of co-ordinate axes.

But if you are saying that the fiber stress will always be zero at the center of gravity of a section subjected to bending about an arbitrary axis, I don't believe that is true.

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

On second thought, any applied moment can be resolved into two components, each parallel to each of the principle axes, so the fiber stress should be zero at the c.g. for any applied moment.

The c.g. is not necessarily within the section however, as is the case with an angle.

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Proof turns out to be quite straight forward, but devoid of penetrating geometrical insights.

Take an arbitrary shape and a set of X,Y Cartesian axes.  Locate the axes' origin at the shape's centroid (the centroid as calculated relative to the X,Y axis system, to avoid any hint of circularity in the argument).  Create a second set of axes U,V sharing the same origin but rotated by an angle t (for theta).

The rules for transformation between these two axis systems is
u = c.x - s.y   and   v = s.x + c.y
where   c = cos(t)   and   s = sin(t)

In what follows, I will use SA to represent the operation of integration over the area of the shape.

By the definition of the centroid we know that
Sy.dA = 0   and   Sx.dA = 0
The u coordinate of the (perhaps different) centroid in the U,V coordinate system is defined as
Su.dA
which, upon transformation to the X,Y system becomes
S(c.x-s.y).dA
= c.Sx.dA - s.Sy.dA
= 0 - 0

TCTP
(This Completes The Proof, to use an English FLA for a change.)

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

Well done Denial! It took me until just now to fully buy in but I'm now in full agreement. I think that the penetrating geometrical insight is BA's observation above. Not exactly earth shattering but, then, we're playing around in remedial mechanics of material 101 here. Thanks for the help guys.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

I'd still like to know if there's a general formula for the location of the plastic centroid. I haven't seen one so here's my guess:

Sa (y-y_cp)/|y-y_cp| dA = 0

Any thoughts? Anybody know how to integrate and solve for y_cp?

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

While the formula you give is correct, I'm not sure it is a huge amount of help.  The problem is probably going to require a strikingly different approach.

Maybe some inspiration can be found in statistics, where there is a (sort of) one-dimensional analogy.  Consider the difference between finding the mean of a set of numbers (their "elastic centroid") and finding their median (their "plastic centroid").

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

How can there be a general formula for the location of the plastic centroid if it is not always in the same place?

BA

RE: Geometric Properties of Complex Shapes

It would be a general formula for the distance from a given axis to the location of a parallel plastic neutral axis. On an axis by axis basis, it would be similar to the elastic centroid.

My suspicion is that I haven't seen a closed form solution because there isn't one. But I'd love fire someone to prove me wrong which is why I posted my formula. A seek and find solution like median wouldn't let me implement a surveying formula style spreadsheet solutions a I had hoped.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources