Intended users
- architecture and structural engineering students
- architects and early-phase structural designers exploring forms like shear walls, cantilevers, and tall slender elements
- designers needing rule-of-thumb validation before detailed modeling or analysis
Need you’re trying to provide a solution or support for
- early design phases often involve creative geometry without engineering checks, or if it includes engineering checks it takes significantly longer
- designers need quick feedback on whether structural elements are proportionally viable
- early feedback helps avoid rework and encourages more efficient and transparent collaboration between architects and engineers
Inputs
- geometry: member type (column, wall, truss, plate, arch, cantilever, etc)
- dimensions: height, width, depth, span
- support condition: simply supported or cantilevered
Underlying logic of the model you’ll implement
- uses common structural heuristics to evaluate aspect ratio feasibility
- axial (columns): max 50:1 slenderness
- bending (beams, arches): max 20:1 span-to-depth
- shear (plates, walls): max 1:2 height-to-width
- torsion (thin shafts): max ~6.28:1 (2π:1)
- pure tension: idealized to infinity but limited in practice by constructability
- for cantilevers, applies half of the aspect ratio limits used for simply supported members
- provides feedback when input dimensions exceed safe or typical structural behavior limits
- suggests more appropriate structural strategies based on geometry and behavior
Outputs
- pass/warning/fail based on calculated aspect ratio
- recommended structural system or member type (switch to truss, increase depth, brace column, etc)
- visual cue or color-coded status indicator (mayhaps)