Talk:Structural analysis

Work done
I've tried to create a first-pass page. I'll be working on it, but I welcome corrections and additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Friedman (talk • contribs) 13:10, August 28, 2003


 * I have expanded the article a little bit, re-organized the presentation, and added the Time-line section, which, hopefully will be more complete. TVBZ28 20:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry but the present article does not read well. Many places, especially the intro, are wordy, grammatically incorrect, pompous and just barely comprehensible to people who already know the subject material. Admin should revert back to an earlier version. TVBZ28 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. My intention was to simply to rephrase the introduction because it did not seem to be written by a native speaker of English. I tried to make it less complicated. However, structural analysis is not a very unified field. You will not find a college textbook on structural analysis that is not particular to a specific engineering task. The closest thing is a book on the mechanics of materials but this is hardly structural analysis. You will define it very differently depending on where in the industry you are working. I felt the definition was too specific to civil engineering as are several other articles related to it.


 * I do agree that it is still a mess. However, I don't agree that the article should be reverted. It needs to move forward not backwards. The English was wrong in the introduction and not concise. For example, the sentence "Structural analysis is very important study for structural engineers." is not informative (what does very important mean?) and is incorrect grammar. The next sentence has even worse grammar but at least it is meaningful. I think the first paragraph is the worst. The rest of the article isn't so bad. The bottom line is that I hope someone else can write something more readable since my wording is not satisfactory. Jebix 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Structural failure
I'd like to see the contents of Structural failure merged with this page. The content is appropriate, and is a subset of structural analysis. - EndingPop 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sufficient to refer to Structural failure if necessary as I see no benefit in its merging with this topic. While structural analysis is of great interest to mechanical & aeronautical engineers, Structural failure is not. TVBZ28 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why you don't think Structural failure is of interest to Mech and Aero engineers? Why is Structural analysis exclusively for them?  The reason I suggested this merge is merely that Structural failure is a small subject that I felt is really a subset of Structural analysis. - EndingPop 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Current topics in Structural failure are almost exclusively related to failures of large scale design and construction of civil or building structures. On the other hand, mechanical & aerospace engineers would be more interested in failures at the micro-scopic level of material performance as caused by fracture, fatigue, creep, thermal shock, etc.. In other words, if I were a mechanical engineer, I'll be smiling on seeing Structural failure occupying a large part of Structural analysis !!! Conversely, if I were a designer of civil structures, I'll be annoyed of having to wade through the article of Structural analysis looking for examples of Structural failure. Finally, burying Structural failure within Structural analysis will, undoubtedly, hamper its expansion in the future. I think I've already spent too much time on this "issue". TVBZ28 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of the points you made, the only one I can agree with is the final one, that it would hamper expansion of Structural failure. I found your last statement rather condescending, and I don't appreciate it.  If you don't have time to commit to this "issue", then don't respond to it.


 * Anyway, the strength of your last argument has me leaning away from merging the articles now, and instead having Structural failure as a section of Structural analysis, with a link to the main article. I still think failure is a subset of analysis, and should be organized as such. - EndingPop 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that structural failure is of great interest to aerospace engineers. I happen to do it for a living and structural failure is what I predict all day long at work. Over 40 hours a week I user basic equations like P/A and Mc/I to calculate stress that are compared against material allowables to write margins of safety. Although you may argue that aircraft structural engineers may have more interest in durability and damage tolerance than other structural engineers it does not mean that we don't use basic failure theories. On any given program only about ten percent of our stress engineers spend time on fracture mechanics or fatigue. Design for fatigue and damage tolerance is only done with guidelines and no number crunching. The number crunching is done near the end of the program to determine the appropriate inspections and inspection intervals. Jebix 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Structural analysis
Information (3 June 2008):

In my book

Kurrer, Karl-Eugen: The History of the Theory of Structures. From Arch Analysis to Computational Mechanics. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn 2008.

one can find the history of structural analysis from 1575 to 2000.

...and 175 brief biographies of the pioneers

Best regards, Karl-Eugen Kurrer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.96.83 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to Structural mechanics
Another article, Structural mechanics, reads very similar to this one (IMO), although it is essentially just a stub. I'm not expert but wanted to mention it here... if they are different topics that needs to be made clear in both articles, otherwise perhaps they should merge. Thanks Dhollm (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Error in math formula
Section 4.1.1 Method of joints, the file "Truss Structure Analysis, Equation Set 2.tiff" has a problem. The second equation, third expression reads $$ R_{Ax} + F_{AD} ~ cos(60) + F_A $$. That last variable should be $$ F_{AB} $$, (see the next expression, the subscript changes). I've made a replacement PNG file, but can't upload it because my account hasn't been confirmed yet. Could someone else fix it? Omni engineer (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)