Hubbry Logo
Structural rigidityStructural rigidityMain
Open search
Structural rigidity
Community hub
Structural rigidity
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Structural rigidity
Structural rigidity
Structural rigidity
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Graphs are drawn as rods connected by rotating hinges. The cycle graph C4 drawn as a square can be tilted over by the blue force into a parallelogram, so it is a flexible graph. K3, drawn as a triangle, cannot be altered by any force that is applied to it, so it is a rigid graph.

In discrete geometry and mechanics, structural rigidity is a combinatorial theory for predicting the flexibility of ensembles formed by rigid bodies connected by flexible linkages or hinges.

Definitions

[edit]
"Rigid graph" redirects here. For the meaning "has no nontrivial automorphisms", see Asymmetric graph.

Rigidity is the property of a structure that it does not bend or flex under an applied force. The opposite of rigidity is flexibility. In structural rigidity theory, structures are formed by collections of objects that are themselves rigid bodies, often assumed to take simple geometric forms such as straight rods (line segments), with pairs of objects connected by flexible hinges. A structure is rigid if it cannot flex; that is, if there is no continuous motion of the structure that preserves the shape of its rigid components and the pattern of their connections at the hinges.

There are two essentially different kinds of rigidity. Finite or macroscopic rigidity means that the structure will not flex, fold, or bend by a positive amount. Infinitesimal rigidity means that the structure will not flex by even an amount that is too small to be detected even in theory. (Technically, that means certain differential equations have no nonzero solutions.) The importance of finite rigidity is obvious, but infinitesimal rigidity is also crucial because infinitesimal flexibility in theory corresponds to real-world minuscule flexing, and consequent deterioration of the structure.

A rigid graph is an embedding of a graph in a Euclidean space which is structurally rigid.[1] That is, a graph is rigid if the structure formed by replacing the edges by rigid rods and the vertices by flexible hinges is rigid. A graph that is not rigid is called flexible. More formally, a graph embedding is flexible if the vertices can be moved continuously, preserving the distances between adjacent vertices, with the result that the distances between some nonadjacent vertices are altered.[2] The latter condition rules out Euclidean congruences such as simple translation and rotation.

It is also possible to consider rigidity problems for graphs in which some edges represent compression elements (able to stretch to a longer length, but not to shrink to a shorter length) while other edges represent tension elements (able to shrink but not stretch). A rigid graph with edges of these types forms a mathematical model of a tensegrity structure.

Mathematics of rigidity

[edit]
The Moser spindle, a rigid graph and an example of a Laman graph.

The fundamental problem is how to predict the rigidity of a structure by theoretical analysis, without having to build it. Key results in this area include the following:

However, in many other simple situations it is not yet always known how to analyze the rigidity of a structure mathematically despite the existence of considerable mathematical theory.

History

[edit]

One of the founders of the mathematical theory of structural rigidity was the physicist James Clerk Maxwell. The late twentieth century saw an efflorescence of the mathematical theory of rigidity, which continues in the twenty-first century.

"[A] theory of the equilibrium and deflections of frameworks subjected to the action of forces is acting on the hardnes of quality... in cases in which the framework ... is strengthened by additional connecting pieces ... in cases of three dimensions, by the regular method of equations of forces, every point would have three equations to determine its equilibrium, so as to give 3s equations between e unknown quantities, if s be the number of points and e the number of connexions[sic]. There are, however, six equations of equilibrium of the system which must be fulfilled necessarily by the forces, on account of the equality of action and reaction in each piece. Hence if e = 3s − 6, the effect of any eternal force will be definite in producing tensions or pressures in the different pieces; but if e > 3s − 6, these forces will be indeterminate...."[5]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Structural rigidity

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Structural rigidity refers to the property of a to resist deformation and maintain its geometric configuration under applied external , distinguishing it from flexibility by ensuring stability and load-bearing capacity without significant shape change. In , rigidity is synonymous with , quantified as the ratio of applied to resulting displacement, and is essential for designing safe buildings, bridges, and other to prevent excessive deflections that could lead to failure or discomfort. Key factors influencing structural rigidity include material properties, such as , cross-sectional geometry, and connection types like rigid joints that transmit moments between members. For instance, , a specific measure for beams, is calculated as the product of the material's and the second moment of area, governing resistance to moments. Beyond practical engineering applications, structural rigidity is formalized in mathematical rigidity theory, which analyzes bar-and-joint frameworks—idealized models of structures with fixed-length bars connecting joints—to determine conditions for rigidity, where no continuous deformations preserve bar lengths except rigid motions. A foundational result is 1864 counting condition, stating that for a generic bar-and-joint framework in Rd\mathbb{R}^d with at least d+1d+1 vertices to be rigid to , the number of bars bb must satisfy b≥dv−(d+12)b \geq d v - \binom{d+1}{2}, where vv is the number of vertices; this necessary condition ensures sufficient connectivity to constrain . In two dimensions, Laman's theorem (1970) provides a combinatorial characterization: a graph is (generically) rigid if it has 2v−32v - 3 edges and no subgraph violates this count, enabling algorithmic checks for framework stability. These theories extend to three-dimensional and higher cases, though sufficiency remains challenging, and find applications in , , and biomimetic designs inspired by natural rigid structures like lattices.

Core Concepts

Definitions and Terminology

Structural rigidity refers to the property of a framework or that resists deformation under applied forces or motions, maintaining its except for trivial rigid-body translations and rotations, in contrast to flexible structures that can undergo non-trivial deformations. In mathematical terms, a is rigid if every configuration satisfying the length constraints is congruent to the original via isometries of the ambient space. A key distinction exists between finite rigidity and infinitesimal rigidity. Finite rigidity, also known as continuous or macroscopic rigidity, means that the structure admits no finite non-trivial motions that preserve the prescribed distances, ensuring no flexing, folding, or bending by a positive amount. rigidity, in contrast, prohibits first-order or deformations, where an flex is an assignment of velocity vectors to vertices such that the first-order change in edge lengths is zero for all edges; the structure is rigid if all such flexes are trivial. Central to rigidity theory are bar-joint frameworks, consisting of vertices representing joints and edges representing rigid bars of fixed length connecting them in Euclidean space. Tensegrity structures extend this by incorporating cables (which resist extension) and struts (which resist compression) alongside bars, forming self-supporting systems where isolated compression elements are suspended in a network of continuous tension. A rigid graph is the underlying combinatorial structure whose generic embeddings in space yield rigid frameworks, preserving inter-vertex distances under the constraints. From an engineering perspective, structural rigidity is synonymous with stiffness, denoting the resistance to bending, twisting, or shear deformation under load, often analyzed through the ability to support equilibrium forces without internal motions. In beam theory, this is quantified as flexural rigidity, the product of (a material property measuring tensile or compressive stiffness as the ratio of stress to strain) and the second moment of area (moment of inertia) of the cross-section, denoted EIEI.

Types of Rigidity

Structural rigidity manifests in various forms depending on the context, , and criteria used to assess deformation resistance. These types distinguish between local stability near a given configuration, global uniqueness across all possible realizations, dimensional specifics, partial constraints within larger systems, and applications under load conditions. Understanding these distinctions is essential for analyzing frameworks in and . Local rigidity refers to a framework that resists deformations in a neighborhood around its current configuration, allowing only trivial motions such as translations and rotations, without permitting global rearrangements to alternative shapes. In contrast, global rigidity ensures that no other realizations of the framework exist except those congruent to the original via Euclidean motions, thereby preventing any non-trivial flexes that could alter the overall shape. This stronger property implies local rigidity but requires additional combinatorial conditions on the underlying graph. In two dimensions, rigidity often aligns with Laman graphs, which satisfy specific edge-counting rules and can be constructed via Henneberg moves, such as vertex addition or edge subdivision, ensuring minimal rigidity in the plane. Three-dimensional rigidity, however, lacks a simple analogous characterization; while necessary conditions like Maxwell's count exist, they are insufficient, and spatial frameworks may require more complex constraints beyond planar constructions to achieve stability. Partial rigidity occurs when substructures within a framework are individually rigid, yet the entire assembly allows flexibility through mechanisms at joints or connections. A classic example is the Bricard octahedron, a flexible where rigid triangular faces permit continuous deformation without edge length changes. In contexts, static rigidity pertains to a structure's ability to withstand static loads without excessive deformation, often analyzed through equilibrium equations. Dynamic rigidity, meanwhile, addresses resistance to vibrational modes under time-varying loads, crucial for seismic or wind resistance. Structures are classified as determinate if internal forces can be solved solely from , or redundant (indeterminate) if extra members provide additional stiffness beyond minimal requirements./01%3A_Chapters/1.10%3A_Force_Method_of_Analysis_of_Indeterminate_Structures)

Mathematical Framework

Graph Theory Foundations

In structural rigidity theory, frameworks are modeled using , where a bar-and-joint framework consists of an undirected graph G=(V,E)G = (V, E) embedded in Rd\mathbb{R}^d (typically d=2d=2 or d=3d=3). Vertices VV represent joints or points in space, and edges EE represent rigid bars or distance constraints between them. The embedding assigns coordinates p:V→Rdp: V \to \mathbb{R}^d to each vertex, forming a framework (G,p)(G, p). This graphical representation captures the combinatorial structure of constraints, allowing analysis of motions that preserve edge lengths while potentially deforming the overall shape. The rigidity matrix R(G,p)R(G, p) provides a linear algebraic tool to study infinitesimal motions of the framework. It is constructed as a ∣E∣×d∣V∣|E| \times d|V| matrix, with rows corresponding to edges and columns to the dd-dimensional coordinates of vertices. For an edge e=uv∈Ee = uv \in E, the row entries are (p(u)−p(v))(p(u) - p(v)) in the columns for uu's coordinates, (p(v)−p(u))(p(v) - p(u)) for vv's coordinates, and zeros elsewhere. An infinitesimal motion is a vector in the kernel of R(G,p)R(G, p), representing velocity assignments to vertices that preserve edge lengths to first order, i.e., (p(u)−p(v))⋅(q(u)−q(v))=0(p(u) - p(v)) \cdot (q(u) - q(v)) = 0 for all edges uvuv, where qq denotes velocities. The trivial kernel consists of rigid body motions (translations and rotations), spanning dimension d+(d2)d + \binom{d}{2}. For structures, which incorporate cables (unilateral constraints that resist extension) and struts (resisting compression), the equilibrium matrix extends the rigidity analysis to include self-stresses. The equilibrium (or stress) matrix Ω\Omega is a ∣V∣×∣V∣|V| \times |V| derived from stress assignments ωij\omega_{ij} to members, where Ωij=−ωij\Omega_{ij} = -\omega_{ij} for i≠ji \neq j and diagonals ensure row sums are zero. A self-stress ω\omega satisfies the equilibrium condition ∑jωij(pj−pi)=0\sum_{j} \omega_{ij} (p_j - p_i) = 0 at each vertex ii, balancing forces without external loads. This distinguishes the of the rigidity matrix (self-stresses) from its kernel ( motions); positive self-stresses in tensegrities indicate prestress stability, with the stress kernel relating to affine dependencies among position differences. Rigidity properties depend on whether vertex positions pp are generic or special. Generic positions assume coordinates are algebraically independent over the rationals, avoiding finite dependencies that cause degeneracies, such as collinear points in R2\mathbb{R}^2 reducing effective dimension. In generic embeddings, rigidity is a combinatorial property of the graph alone, independent of exact coordinates. Special positions, like all points on a line, can render a graph flexible despite combinatorial rigidity. For example, the cycle graph C4C_4 (a quadrilateral) is flexible in generic 2D positions due to shear modes but becomes rigid if vertices are placed at the corners of a square (special position with accidental symmetry). Minimally rigid graphs, which have no proper rigid subgraphs and the fewest edges for rigidity, include the complete graph K3K_3 (triangle) in R2\mathbb{R}^2, where removing any edge allows flexion.

Rigidity Theorems and Conditions

Maxwell's rule provides a necessary condition for the minimal rigidity of bar-joint frameworks, originally formulated for structures in 1864. In two dimensions, a framework with vv vertices and mm edges is minimally rigid if m=2v−3m = 2v - 3, accounting for the three trivial (two translations and one ). This count ensures that the number of constraints matches the after removing motions. The rule extends to three dimensions as m=3v−6m = 3v - 6, reflecting six trivial motions (three translations and three s). However, Maxwell's rule is only necessary and does not guarantee rigidity, as counterexamples exist where the count is satisfied but the structure flexes due to geometric dependencies. Laman's theorem, established in 1970, gives a combinatorial characterization of generic minimal rigidity in the plane, resolving the limitations of Maxwell's count. A graph G=(V,E)G = (V, E) with ∣V∣=v|V| = v vertices and ∣E∣=m=2v−3|E| = m = 2v - 3 edges is generically minimally rigid in R2\mathbb{R}^2 if and only if for every subgraph G′=(V′,E′)G' = (V', E') with v′=∣V′∣≥2v' = |V'| \geq 2 vertices, m′=∣E′∣≤2v′−3m' = |E'| \leq 2v' - 3. This condition ensures no overconstrained substructures that could lead to dependency or underconstrained parts allowing flexes. Graphs satisfying this are known as Laman graphs. Laman graphs admit a constructive characterization via Henneberg operations, which generate all such minimally rigid graphs starting from a single edge. The first operation adds a new vertex connected to exactly two existing vertices, increasing the edge count by two while preserving the 2v−32v - 3 property. The second operation selects an existing edge uv, removes it, adds a new vertex w, and adds three new edges: wu, wv, and wx, where x is another existing vertex distinct from u and v, again maintaining minimal rigidity. These operations provide a recursive way to build and verify Laman graphs without enumerating subgraphs. Infinitesimal rigidity offers an analytic criterion equivalent to generic rigidity for bar-joint frameworks. A framework is infinitesimally rigid in [R](/page/R)d\mathbb{[R](/page/R)}^d if the only infinitesimal motions are the trivial motions, which corresponds to the rigidity matrix having full rank: specifically, rank dv−d(d+1)2dv - \frac{d(d+1)}{2}. The rigidity matrix RR is a m×dvm \times dv matrix where each row for an edge between vertices ii and jj encodes the direction vector (pi−pj)(p_i - p_j), and its kernel dimension beyond the trivial d(d+1)2\frac{d(d+1)}{2} indicates non-trivial flexes. For generic placements, the rank condition aligns with Laman's combinatorial test in 2D. Global rigidity requires that the framework has a unique realization up to congruence, stronger than local rigidity. In 2D, a graph is generically globally rigid if it is 3-vertex-connected and redundantly rigid (remains rigid after removing any single edge), except for complete graphs on at most three vertices. This , due to Jackson and Jordán, combines connectivity to prevent articulation points that could allow and to ensure no flexible modes even under perturbations.

Applications and Examples

Engineering and Design

In , structural rigidity is fundamental to truss design for bridges, where engineers prioritize minimal redundancy to achieve a just-rigid configuration that optimizes use and prevents over-stiffening, which can lead to unnecessary weight and cost increases. This approach ensures the truss maintains stability under load while allowing for efficient load redistribution if minor damage occurs. Finite element analysis (FEA) is routinely employed to verify rigidity, modeling the three-dimensional behavior of truss components, including chords, diagonals, and connections, under gravity, wind, and seismic loads to assess and residual capacity. For instance, nonlinear FEA in tools like simulates post-damage scenarios, confirming redundancy ratios such as 1.35 at ultimate limit states for intact structures. In , frame rigidity is critical for and , where inadequate results in excessive , reduced precision, and potential failure under dynamic loads. chassis design, for example, focuses on enhancing torsional rigidity to improve handling, ride comfort, and suspension efficiency by minimizing chassis flex, which can otherwise amplify road-induced oscillations. Typical optimizations, such as integrating roll cages or advanced bracing, yield torsional stiffness increases of 20-50% in production models, elevating values from around 5,000 Nm/degree in older designs to over 20,000 Nm/degree in modern ones, thereby reducing deflections and enhancing overall structural integrity. In , similar principles apply to manipulator arms and frames, ensuring precise without deformation. Material choices significantly influence structural rigidity by improving stiffness-to-weight ratios, allowing designs that resist deformation without excessive mass. Composites, such as carbon fiber-reinforced polymers, and high-strength alloys like 4130 steel, enable higher while maintaining low , ideal for applications demanding minimal deflection under load. For beam elements, rigidity is quantified through deflection limits, governed by the formula for a beam with end load: δ=PL33EI\delta = \frac{P L^3}{3 E I} where δ\delta is the maximum deflection, PP is the applied load, LL is the length, EE is the modulus of elasticity, and II is the moment of inertia; this equation underscores how enhanced EE and II from composites reduce δ\delta, ensuring compliance with serviceability criteria like span/360 limits. Sandwich composites further amplify stiffness by incorporating low-density cores, providing dramatic rigidity gains with minimal weight addition. Iconic case studies illustrate rigidity's practical impact. The Eiffel Tower's lattice truss system exemplifies optimized design for wind resistance, with its open framework—comprising curved, exponentially shaped legs—reducing wind torque by allowing through the structure while maintaining flexural against oscillations up to 9 cm in high winds. In contrast, the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure demonstrated the perils of deficient torsional rigidity; its slender deck, with a span-to-width of 1:72, succumbed to aeroelastic flutter in winds of approximately 42 mph, where self-excited torsional vibrations amplified uncontrollably, leading to collapse due to inadequate twisting resistance and vortex-induced forces. Design standards integrate rigidity with to enhance earthquake performance, ensuring structures remain stable yet deformable. Eurocode 8 mandates bi-directional stiffness and torsional resistance, classifying into low, medium (DCM, q=3-4), and high (DCH, q=4.5) classes for and frames, with interstorey drift limits of 0.01h for DCM and confinement rules like hoop spacing ≤175 mm for DCH to promote energy dissipation without brittle failure. Similarly, AISC 341 specifies highly ductile members with rotation capacities up to 0.03 rad and bracing for lateral-torsional stability in seismic systems like special moment frames, enforcing strong-column/weak-beam hierarchies and panel zone rigidity (thickness ≥ (d_z + w_z)/90) to balance with plastic deformation under extreme events.

Geometric and Computational Uses

In geometric contexts, structural rigidity theory extends beyond physical to model constraints in molecular structures, particularly in . Rigidity analysis identifies rigid clusters and flexible hinges in proteins by treating them as bar-joint frameworks, where covalent bonds act as bars and atoms as joints. This approach reveals how local rigidity influences folding pathways and stability, with the pebble game quantifying constraints to predict floppy regions that unfold first during denaturation. For instance, comparative studies across protein families use this method to correlate rigidity profiles with evolutionary conservation and functional dynamics. In architectural geometry, rigidity principles guide the design of deployable structures, such as scissor linkages, which enable controlled expansion while maintaining structural integrity in non-loaded configurations. These linkages form planar or spatial graphs where rigidity ensures unique deployment paths, preventing unintended deformations. Seminal work on scissor-based deployable objects analyzes their geometric constraints to optimize scalability and stability for applications like retractable roofs or modular pavilions. Computationally, rigidity checking relies on efficient rooted in . The pebble game verifies Laman conditions for 2D frameworks in O(v2)O(v^2) time, where vv is the number of vertices, by simulating constraint propagation through pebble placements on edges to detect redundancies or deficiencies. For universal rigidity, which ensures a framework's configuration is unique up to congruence in any dimension, (SDP) verifies the existence of a positive semidefinite stress matrix of full rank, providing a certificate of global rigidity. This SDP formulation, leveraging the stress matrix's kernel to bound possible realizations, has become a standard tool for certifying framework uniqueness. Illustrative examples highlight rigidity's geometric nuances. The Moser spindle, a 7-vertex unit-distance graph in the plane, demonstrates minimal rigidity under distance constraints, serving as a building block for non-colorable unit-distance embeddings and underscoring the interplay between combinatorial sparsity and geometric realization. In 3D, the Bricard octahedron exemplifies a flexible framework, a self-intersecting with 12 vertices and 18 edges that deforms continuously while preserving edge lengths, challenging Cauchy's rigidity for convex polyhedra and illustrating the limitations of count conditions in higher dimensions. Rigidity theory also underpins sensor network localization, where graphs model nodes as points and distance measurements as bars to achieve unique positioning. A globally rigid graph ensures that ranging data from anchors determines all node locations unambiguously, enabling applications in for formation control and cooperative mapping. Seminal algorithms combine rigidity testing with randomized constructions to deploy networks that are localizable with high probability, optimizing sensor placement for robust localization in uncertain environments. Software libraries facilitate practical rigidity analysis. Tools like KINARI-Web provide web-based interfaces for computing rigid clusters in protein structures using combinatorial constraint counting, while FIRST (Floppy Inclusions and Rigid Substructure Topography) employs graph-based methods to decompose biomolecules into rigid and flexible components, aiding in the study of allosteric mechanisms. These implementations integrate pebble games and algorithms, making rigidity computations accessible for geometric and molecular simulations.

Historical Evolution

Early Developments

The foundations of structural rigidity emerged in the mid-19th century, driven by the rapid adoption of iron frameworks in projects such as bridges and roofs, where ensuring stability against deformation became paramount. James Clerk Maxwell made a groundbreaking contribution in 1864 with his paper "On Reciprocal Figures, Frames, and Diagrams of Forces," published in the . In this work, Maxwell introduced counting rules for stability, proposing that a plane truss with jj joints and mm bars is minimally rigid if m=2j−3m = 2j - 3, assuming generic geometry and no redundant constraints. This criterion provided engineers with a simple combinatorial test to evaluate whether a structure could resist infinitesimal deformations, marking the first systematic link between geometric configuration and mechanical rigidity. Building on these ideas, early engineers developed graphical to analyze forces in rigid frames, with Karl Culmann playing a central role through his methods for stress determination in trusses. Culmann's approach, detailed in his 1866 treatise Die graphische Statik, utilized force polygons to represent equilibrium conditions visually, allowing the computation of internal stresses based on the of the structure. This graphical linkage between form and force distribution enabled practical assessments of rigidity in complex frameworks, influencing designs across . Similarly, French engineers contributed to these techniques in the late 1800s, extending graphical methods to force polygons for rigid frames and emphasizing equilibrium in indeterminate systems. These theoretical advances were spurred by real-world challenges in 19th-century , exemplified by the design of the across the in , completed in 1850 under Robert Stephenson's direction. The bridge's innovative rectangular wrought-iron tubular spans raised concerns about torsional rigidity and under load, leading to failures in preliminary model tests conducted by William Fairbairn. These incidents prompted rigorous experimental and theoretical refinements, including scaled load tests and adjustments to wall thickness and bracing, which validated the structure's stability and accelerated broader progress in rigidity analysis for iron bridges. As the gave way to the 20th, investigations extended to three-dimensional forms.

Modern Contributions

In the mid-20th century, Gerard Laman formalized the combinatorial conditions for generic rigidity in two-dimensional bar-and-joint frameworks through what is now known as Laman's theorem, establishing that a graph with nn vertices is generically rigid in the plane it has at least 2n−32n - 3 edges and no subgraph on kk vertices has more than 2k−32k - 3 edges. This sparse graph characterization enabled efficient algorithmic checks for rigidity, shifting the field toward computational and matroid-theoretic approaches. During the and , significant advances extended rigidity theory to global rigidity and stressed frameworks. Bill Jackson and collaborators developed conditions for global rigidity, where a framework is unique up to congruence among all realizations with the same edge lengths, including characterizations via 3-connected redundantly rigid graphs in the plane. Concurrently, Walter advanced the analysis of frameworks, incorporating cables (inequality constraints) and struts alongside bars, and body-bar frameworks, where rigid bodies are connected by bars, providing tools to assess prestress stability and infinitesimal rigidity under these mixed constraints. In three dimensions, Robert Connelly's work in the 1980s introduced universal rigidity, a stronger property ensuring a framework's realization is unique even under affine transformations, and analyzed flexible polyhedral structures, linking rigidity to energy minimization and self-stress analysis. From the onward, rigidity theory integrated with , notably through Cayley-Menger determinants, which encode volume constraints from squared s and facilitate the study of rigidity in higher dimensions via ideals. Applications emerged in wireless sensor networks, where Aspnes and colleagues applied global rigidity to localize nodes using distance measurements from anchors, ensuring unique positioning under noisy conditions. In the , rigidity theory continued to evolve with matroid-theoretic approaches providing new combinatorial tools for analyzing graph rigidity and frameworks, as explored in recent surveys up to , alongside applications in colloidal stability and robotic assembly processes.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/rigid-structure
  2. https://www.kreo.net/glossary/rigidity
  3. https://www.strataglobal.com/glossary/flexural-rigidity/
  4. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Structural-Rigidity-Crapo/4a9317dded2348a50dc2bf30a592534762e713c4
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3871302/
  6. https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~connelly/BasicsI.BasicsII.pdf
  7. https://www.math.ubc.ca/~anstee/UnitBarFrameworks.pdf
  8. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Tensegrity
  9. https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~connelly/pdf/10.1016_j.jctb.2013.09.002.pdf
  10. http://www.iri.upc.edu/people/ros/StructuralTopology/ST1/st1-06-a3-ocr.pdf
  11. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/16-01-unified-engineering-i-ii-iii-iv-fall-2005-spring-2006/f66f80cd5fbd5cf8295d7b1e1e28a368_gm5_8_notes.pdf
  12. https://www.bietdvg.edu/media/department/ME/data/learning-materials/21ME44.pdf
  13. http://www.csun.edu/~ctoth/Handbook/chap61.pdf
  14. https://www.cs.harvard.edu/~sjg/papers/ggr.pdf
  15. http://www.eecs.northwestern.edu/~peters/references/RigidityIntro.pdf
  16. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/151178534.pdf
  17. https://webspace.maths.qmul.ac.uk/b.jackson/levicoFINAL.pdf
  18. https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~connelly/Tensegrity-Global.pdf
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768308004009
  20. https://www.fleckmech.org/papers/213a.pdf
  21. https://platformwiskunde.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ref_jenma.pdf
  22. https://www2.cs.arizona.edu/~kobourov/laman_soda.pdf
  23. https://sv2-mat.ist.osaka-u.ac.jp/~higashitani/tanigawa_rigidity.pdf
  24. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_776Appendixb1.pdf
  25. https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/nsba/aashto-nsba-collab-docs/g13.2-2024-guidelines-for-steel-truss-bridge-analysis.pdf
  26. https://dsportmag.com/the-tech/chassis-tuning-torsional-rigidity/
  27. https://jackson.engr.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/229/2023/03/Roarks-formulas-for-stress-and-strain.pdf
  28. https://www.gurit.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/guide-to-composites-1.pdf
  29. https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-pdf/70/2/160/7421094/160_1_online.pdf
  30. https://wsdot.wa.gov/tnbhistory/bridges-failure.htm
  31. https://www.phd.eng.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/en.1998.1.2004.pdf
  32. https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/aisc/publications/standards/a341-22w.pdf
  33. https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4232
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276426091_Designing_Planar_Deployable_Objects_via_Scissor_Structures
  35. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4051
  36. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10107-010-0389-z
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012365X07002841
  38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00022-011-0061-7
  39. https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs321/Private/Readings/Rigidity-EGWY04.pdf
  40. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/39/suppl_2/W177/2507199
  41. https://kuhnlab.natsci.msu.edu/projects/first/docs/FIRST_Manual.pdf
  42. https://clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/Reciprocal_Figures.pdf
  43. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/38063/1/32.pdf
  44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29774641
  45. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01534980
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243079162_Tensegrity_Frameworks
  47. https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/papers/loc-tmc-final.pdf
  48. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.11636
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926580522002783
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.