[INES Announce] book publication: Prediction............. some comments by Julie Mark Cohen wearing her engineering "hat"

[Julie Mark Cohen]

Johannes and INES members,

Congratulations on the publication of your book.  I'm sorry that Ann Johnson isn't here to celebrate with you.

With great interest in engineering knowledge flow (creators, carriers, conveyors, users, impeders, and feedback loops) and subsequent failures of fabricated/constructed structures placed into service, I just started reading your book.

Note:  I intentionally use engineering knowledge flow because this expression leads itself to more appropriate critical analyses.  That is, I do not use knowledge diffusion because it lacks "direction."  Also, knowledge flow offers me the opportunity to "structure" (no pun intended) my analyses.

While wearing my structural engineer's "hat," I wrote the below to share with Johannes and other INES members.  The historical account that Johannes presented on inelastic column buckling is an early-on "event," a fascinating event, in a multi-decade, multi-country story.  This "event" does typify the development of structural engineering knowledge, specifically the exchanges among those engineers who feel that they are qualified to offer technical opinions.  (Yes, my wording was intentional.)

I am particularly interested in the book's section on column buckling.  I spent much of my time at Cornell University studying and conducting an experimental and analytical PhD thesis on buckling of metal structures including columns, plate elements of beams in compression (compression flanges and portions of the vertical components called webs), and plate and shell structures.  My thesis was entitled "Local Buckling of Plate Elements."  In forensic work in my structural engineering practice, I have encountered several interesting buckling problems that were primarily caused by the design engineers' lack of use of well-established, relevant, published knowledge.  In some cases, the design engineers failed to visualize or otherwise consider this:  How would the structure fail?

Johannes:  What led you to finding the 1895 journal article?

I very much appreciate that Johannes filled in an important, previously over-looked "hole" in the history of inelastic column buckling.
This is a "gem" that would be a welcome contribution to the history of structural engineering, much more so than aerospace engineering in which many of the early-mid 20th century papers were published.

***  I encourage Johannes to write an article for NCSEA's Structure magazine.  See: https://www.structuremag.org/
You may want to look at the articles on bridges written by Frank Griggs to get an idea how historical information was presented by one particular author:  https://www.structuremag.org/? s=frank+griggs<https://www.structuremag.org/?%20s=frank+griggs>
For today's authors, see:  https://www.structuremag.org/for-authors/
You may need to sharpen and clarify some of the words and phrases that you used.  I'd be happy to help you with this, if you wish.

Please kindly read on.

Highlights (selected references) on inelastic column buckling:

Before 1996-1895:   From Peter Maranian's 2021 book entitled Steel Structures: Considerations to Reduce Failures Due to Instability, published by ASCE.  See:  https://sp360.asce.org/PersonifyEbusiness/Merchandise/Product-Details/productId/275684766

"During the latter part of the eighteenth century and early part of the nineteenth century, investigators in France, J. R. Perronet, then J. E. Lamblardie, followed by P. S. Girard conducted tests to try to replicate Euler’s formula.  The tests carried out by Girard were conducted on wooden struts and gave results that were appreciably different from perfectly elastic, thus showing no agreement with Euler’s theory. Investigations were carried out by A. Duleau in 1820 at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France, and E. Hodgkinson in 1840 at the University College, London, England. Duleau used very slender bars that demonstrated good agreement with Hodgkinson’s tests, which were carried out on both slender and shorter struts. The slender, solid struts showed good accord with Euler’s formula. A satisfactory explanation by E. Lamarle, from Belgium, in 1845, showed that Euler’s formula agreed with the experiments so long as the columns performed perfectly elastically and ideal end conditions were met (Timoshenko 1953).
"According to Bleich (1952), it was not until 1889, more than a century since Euler first published his work, that both Considѐre in France and Freidrich Engesser in Germany independently formally proclaimed the validity of Euler’s formula.
"Further work by the British researcher R. V. Southwell, circa 1932, taking into account small initial imperfections, confirmed that Euler’s formula was within engineering accuracy [less than 3% (Gerald 1962)]. Southwell’s work used very careful tests on mild steel columns carried out by the German [JMC note:  Hungarian in 1910, later American] researcher Theodore von Karman in 1910 (Timoshenko 1953, Gerald 1962). After there was acceptance of Euler’s theory, greater emphasis was made to establish theories for short columns. However, it took another century to establish theories pertaining to short columns where the material can yield (inelastic)…"

JMC note:  Column design charts take into account material behavior (elastic, inelastic), as well as initial imperfections in the geometry of the fabrication of the columns, residual stresses, end conditions of the columns (fixed, partially restrained rotationally, pinned or free to rotate with no resistance), and so on.

1886-1895.  See Johnson and Lenhard's book.

1910.  Theodore von Kármán, Th., Untersuchungen ilber Knickfestigkeit, Mitteilungen iiber Forschungsarbeiten, Verein deutscher Inganieure, Heft 81; Julius Springer, Berlin, 1910.

1924.  Friedrich Bleich. Theory and Design of Steel Bridges.(in German), Julius Springer, Berlin. Excerpts translated by M. Roemer, Translation 30, David Taylor Model Basin, Bureau of Ships, Jan. 1942.

1946.  Shanley. (attached)

1947.  Shanley (attached)
1947.  von Kármán praised by Shanley (in Shanley pdf file at the end)

1948.  Wang.  (attached)

1948.  Shanley (letter to the editor, attached)

1952.  Friedrich Bleich's book entitled Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, published in 1952 by the McGraw-Hill Book Company.  Bleich was an Austrian who emigrated to Switzerland in 1938 and then to the U.S. in 1941.  (Out of print.  I have a 1952 hard copy, which is a story in itself.  See:  https://archive.org/details/bucklingstrength0000blei/mode/2up)

1962.  Gerard (attached)

1974.  Alexander Chajes, Principles of Structural Stability Theory.  In his Chapter 1 on "buckling of Columns," there are 21 sections.  Four of the subsections are on inelastic buckling of columns, double modulus theory, tangent modulus theory, and Shanley's theory of inelastic column behavior.
Inelastic behavior of columns, pp. 35-59
See:  https://archive.org/details/AlexanderChajePrinciplesOfStructuralStabilityTheory1974/page/n13/mode/2up

2018.  Yura (attached).  An example of a history of column design written by a structural engineer.

Yura noted, "For straight members Engesser extended the Euler formula into the inelastic range by replacing E with ET, the tangent to the slope of the stress-strain curve, for both loading and unloading elements of the cross section. He later produced a second inelastic theory, supposedly a more accurate formulation called the double modulus theory, that used E, not ET for the unloading fibers during bending (buckling). However, limited tests supported the tangent modulus theory. It would take fifty years to resolve the controversy between these two theories."  He also stated, "Tangent modulus buckling theory was gaining acceptance and was verified by Shanley after WWII."

=== =

Several comments:

Often, the creation of new knowledge follows from research after a catastrophic failure of an engineered artifact.
Here, however, it seems that initial laboratory testing was conducted in the early-mid-1800s, years before the June 15, 1891, collapse of the Münchenstein Railroad Bridge.  In that era, was there an expectation that the earlier knowledge would have been available to the bridge's engineers?  Probably not, but the earlier knowledge needs to be included in the historical record.

Knowledge creation (in engineering) is not an event encapsulated in time and place.  I am referring to the semi-empirical equations (based on theory modified by testing and analyses) that are developed by various technical professionals for codified documents that are used by structural engineers.

            Please note:
Written exchanges in peer-reviewed professional publications among engineers found in peer-reviewed journals and professional magazines have been comparatively tame (i.e., polite and respectful) as compared with in-person exchanges that have occurred during, say, in-person technical committee meetings to develop code requirements from results from laboratory testing programs.  These technical committees have been comprised of engineers who have equally represented academia, practice, and industry (usually profit-driven companies).

How do I know this?  From a number of engineers senior to me who first told stories to me 40+ years ago (nearly all of whom have since died).  Also, from my participation on such committees in which I observed heated arguments of professors vs. practitioners vs. industry representatives.

Did the published exchanges on inelastic column buckling change over time?  If so, how?  How representative are they of other exchanges on, say, buckling of plate elements in ships and airplanes and also plate elements of hot-rolled and light gauge steel beams and columns?  Was the logic/reasoning the same?  If not, what was different?  How did the laboratory testing differ to best capture the elastic and inelastic buckling of plate elements?

Inelastic column buckling is a very difficult topic to convey to laypersons, let alone to engineering students.  In nearly all of the pdf files that I have attached, the authors used graphics, equations, and text to convey information.
My preference is to also define terms (sometimes with graphics, as needed) that may be unfamiliar to some readers and provide for the definitions both graphics and equations suitable for a broad audience.

What exactly is the knowledge flow for inelastic column buckling from knowledge creators to carriers to conveyors to users with impeders and feedback loops (typically after failures)?  For the 1800s, why is it difficult for us now to "connect the dots"?  What were the roles of geographic locations of research and education combined with 19th century means of communicating research results?  And 20th century?

Why did Peter J. Maranian (who went to university in England, who has been working/living in the Los Angeles area for the past few decades) include some of the 20th century history that U.S. engineers failed to include in their histories?

Although Shanley's work is most often noted by structural engineers was it the end of the story on analytically modelling inelastic column behavior?
--- -

I hope that my comments are helpful in some small way, especially for the dissemination of future documents on engineers and engineering, so that today's engineers are informed about their history.

Thank you for reading my e-mail message.  If anyone would like to contact me, please do not hesitate to do so.  I appreciate and learn from discussions.

Sincerely,
Julie

Julie Mark Cohen, PhD, PE
Consulting Structural and Forensic Engineer /
Historian of Engineering Design /
Research Affiliate, Program in Science, Technology, and Society, MIT
Tel  (518) 782-5235
Cell (518) 364-0260


From: Announce <announce-bounces at lists.inesweb.org> On Behalf Of Johannes Lenhard via Announce
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 5:00 AM
To: announce at lists.inesweb.org
Subject: [INES Announce] book publication: Prediction


Dear INES colleagues,

I am pleased to announce a new book:

Ann Johnson (1965-2016) and Johannes Lenhard: "Cultures of Prediction. How Science and Engineering Evolve with Mathematical Tools." MIT, 2024.

The book came out last year already. I am a terrible announcer. The book is available in softcover and also open access, see

https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5771/Cultures-of-PredictionHow-Engineering-and-Science

--

“This pioneering and broad-ranging analysis of the real practices of prediction in modern science and engineering goes far beyond philosophers' usual notion of simple logical deduction from theories. Johannes Lenhard has wonderfully completed his collaboration with the late Ann Johnson.”

Hasok Chang, Hans Rausing Professor at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge

“This comprehensive and important study presents much-needed and original work in engineering studies and provides a longue durée perspective.”

Adelheid Voskuhl, Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania

--

Kind regards,

Johannes (Professor, RPTU, Kaiserslautern, Germany)

https://mv.rptu.de/en/dpts/phise



############################

The prediction book is out.

Das Vorhersage-Buch ist erschienen.



https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5771/Cultures-of-PredictionHow-Engineering-and-Science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.inesweb.org/pipermail/announce-inesweb.org/attachments/20250215/04acf1b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Yura_Column-design-past-present-future_2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 994124 bytes
Desc: Yura_Column-design-past-present-future_2018.pdf
URL: <http://lists.inesweb.org/pipermail/announce-inesweb.org/attachments/20250215/04acf1b8/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Shanley_The-Column-Paradox_1946.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 210709 bytes
Desc: Shanley_The-Column-Paradox_1946.pdf
URL: <http://lists.inesweb.org/pipermail/announce-inesweb.org/attachments/20250215/04acf1b8/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Shanley_Inelastic-Column-Theory_1947.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1396307 bytes
Desc: Shanley_Inelastic-Column-Theory_1947.pdf
URL: <http://lists.inesweb.org/pipermail/announce-inesweb.org/attachments/20250215/04acf1b8/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Gerard_Tangent-Modulus-Column-Theory_1960.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 419220 bytes
Desc: Gerard_Tangent-Modulus-Column-Theory_1960.pdf
URL: <http://lists.inesweb.org/pipermail/announce-inesweb.org/attachments/20250215/04acf1b8/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Shanley_Letter-to-the-Editor_1948.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 397788 bytes
Desc: Shanley_Letter-to-the-Editor_1948.pdf
URL: <http://lists.inesweb.org/pipermail/announce-inesweb.org/attachments/20250215/04acf1b8/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Wang_Inelastic-Column-Theories--Anal-Expl-Observations_1948.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1759630 bytes
Desc: Wang_Inelastic-Column-Theories--Anal-Expl-Observations_1948.pdf
URL: <http://lists.inesweb.org/pipermail/announce-inesweb.org/attachments/20250215/04acf1b8/attachment-0005.pdf>