Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 135–142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Enhancing the teaching of linear structural analysis using additive

manufacturing
Lawrence Virgin
School of Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Structural analysis forms a key component in many courses in civil, mechanical and aerospace engineer-
Received 7 March 2017 ing. Conventionally, the matrix stiffness method, a subset of finite element analysis, tends to occupy a
Revised 17 June 2017 central position in a typical syllabus, with a special focus on plane frames providing a bridge between
Accepted 17 July 2017
basic structural components with pedagogical clarity and real-world structures. Equations of equilibrium
Available online 23 July 2017
are set-up and the full force of linear algebra brought to bear using the capabilities of Matlab or more
specialized FEA packages. Such classes have a tendency to become a little dry and suffer from the usual
Keywords:
shortcomings of numerical analysis and a black box approach - shortcomings in the sense of conceptual
Structural analysis
Flexural stiffness
understanding as opposed to usefulness in the hands of experienced practitioners. The relatively recent
Thermoplastic advent of additive manufacturing is an exciting opportunity to incorporate a practical aspect to structural
3D printing analysis. This paper describes the use of 3D printing, via the flexural stiffness of plane frames, to develop a
Education structural feel for students, augmenting theoretical analyses. In addition to directly addressing the role of
modeling, approximation, applicability of the underlying theory, and measurement uncertainty, it is thor-
oughly hands-on and initial anecdotal evidence suggests a higher degree of student buy-in.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 3D printing for deepening an appreciation for structural behavior,

The bending stiffness of a structural member (based on stan-
dard beam theory) is a function of loading, boundary conditions,
material and geometry [1]. For a given prismatic member the stiff-
ness typically scales with EI=L3 , and it is easy to demonstrate the
length dependency with a simple ruler for example. Analytically,
given a set of forces and boundary conditions, we can integrate
the governing expressions and obtain deflection, and hence stiff-
ness. This process is not so straightforward for frames, consisting
of an arrangement of beams (and columns) in typically rectangular
combinations. However, the overall stiffness of such structures is
very important and perhaps a key teaching opportunity occurs
when we seek to shed light on how stiffness depends on these
more realistic geometrical arrangements. This is where the stiff-
ness method comes in.
Despite the liberating effect of Matlab [2] and the ease of
numerical methods [3], the stiffness method becomes a decreas-
ingly hands-on approach for all but the simplest examples. Many
textbooks throughout the last 50 years or so have included chap-
ters on the stiffness method including plane frames; a representa-
tive selection is [4–10]. However, it is possible to exploit versatile
E-mail address: l.virgin@duke.edu
and specifically in terms of printing a range of elastic, relatively
slender, plane frames. Additionally, with relatively simple loading
and boundary conditions it is then possible to assess the role of
geometry and its influence on certain stiffness properties of the
frames using measured data.
This paper considers the lateral stiffness of a baseline plane
frame and some basic variations with three main foci:

use of 3D printing in the teaching of structural analysis,

exploring the influence of parameters on stiffness,

assessing the role of simplifying assumptions.
The overall goal of the paper is to provide a systematic approach
to developing a deeper student understanding of structural
stiffness.
2. 3D printing of slender structures
3D printing has already revolutionized the teaching of mechan-
ical engineering, via the rapid-prototyping of components like
gears, for example. And given increasingly higher resolution it is
now relatively easy to produce slender elastic elements and struc-
tures, and providing deflections and stresses are kept within

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.054
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
136 L. Virgin / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 135–142

acceptable limits, the behavior of such elements and structures is paper uses the 3D printer to produce frames that can be used to
linear and elastic. Thus, 3D printing has potential as a teaching tool directly examines these effects.
in the realm of deformable bodies and structures. Furthermore, in
terms of the capabilities of 3D printing and elementary testing con-
figurations, we shall focus attention on planar structural frames in 3. Flexural stiffness analysis of a simple portal frame
which (i) the boundary conditions are either essentially fixed or
free, and (ii) loads are applied at specific locations (point loads). Historically, the teaching of structural analysis proceeded from
This provides the context in which students can simply print and pin-jointed trusses. This was partly justified by the ubiquity of riv-
test structures and thus assess the important features of the flexu- eted joints, but mostly because very often simplified analytical
ral behavior in general, and aspects of the stiffness method in techniques, such as the methods of joints or sections, could be
particular. brought to bear [11]. But now most structural connections are rigid
We shall focus attention on relatively flexible right-angled plane (e.g., welded) and computational techniques, for example the stiff-
portal frames with clamped boundary conditions, moment- ness method, dominate. Thus frames rather than trusses now form
transmitting joints, and single point loading. This configuration the backbone of most courses on structural analysis (see the list of
was chosen partly to facilitate 3D printing and simple experimen- references). In order to explore this a little further consider a sim-
tal testing, but it also represents a class of structure that is more ple plane portal frame, consisting of two vertical columns that are
instructive than a single structural element like a cantilever, and clamped at their bottom ends and connected (via moment trans-
also can be analyzed using back-of-the-envelop (sway) calcula- mitting joints) to a horizontal beam as shown in Fig. 2(a). Assum-
tions in some cases. Thus, in order to maintain a reasonable balance ing the lengths L and flexural rigidity EI are the same for all
between hand-calculation and the fully fledged stiffness method members, and that the frame is subject to a single horizontal load
we develop a focus on some simple portal frames, and compare at one of the corners, we can write down the set of equilibrium
theory (essentially the linear stiffness method using elastic beam equations for the structure:
elements) and experimental stiffness measurements. 2 3
2 3 ðAL2 =I þ 12Þ 0 6L AL2 =I 0 0 2 3
More specific details will be given later, but by way of introduc- F X
6 7 1
6 7 6 76 7
tion, consider the middle frame shown in Fig. 1. If we clamp the 607 6 2
ðAL =I þ 12Þ 6L 12 6L 7 6 7
6 7 6 0 76 Y 1 7
lower edge, and subject the top corner to a lateral force, we can 6 7 6 76 7
6 7 6 76 7
607 6 8L2
0 6L 2L 76 h1 7
2 76
extract the stiffness of the frame in terms of lateral deflection. 6 7 6 7
6 7 ¼ EI=L3 6 76 7;
6 7 6 76 7
The stiffness of the columns scales with EI=L3 , and thus in moving 607
6 7
6
6
2
ðAL =I þ 12Þ 0 6L 7 6 X2 7
76 7
6 7 6 76 7
to the frame shown on the left we expect a (much) greater stiff- 6 7 6 76 7
607 6 sym: 2
ðAL =I þ 12Þ 6L 7 6Y 7
ness, all other things being equal. Furthermore, if the cross-beam 4 5 6 74 2 5
4 5
is relatively stiff (the frame on the right), we also expect an 0 8L 2 h2
increase in stiffness, but in terms of reducing the rotation of the ð1Þ
corners, and a deflected shape that resembles a lateral sway. This
in which ðX; Y; h) are global coordinates, relative to the bottom left
corner of the frame. The element stiffness matrix for a beam-
column in global coordinates can be found in Appendix A.
If we now assume an overall frame dimension (relevant to the
physical dimensions to be 3D printed later) of L ¼ 0:1 m, and a
rectangular cross-section area ðb  dÞ ¼ ð0:01  0:002Þ, gives an
area A ¼ 20  106 m2, second moment of area I ¼ 6:67  1012 m4,
and thus AL2 =I  ðL=rÞ2 ¼ 30  103 , where r is the radius of gyration.
These parameters relate to a geometry that may be considered
highly flexible, and this facilitates relatively easy measurements.
In analysis, the effective degrees of freedom can be reduced if we
examine the relative magnitudes of each element and exploit cer-
Fig. 1. Simple 3D-printed plane frames.
tain symmetry conditions.

Fig. 2. (a) A simple square portal frame with identical beam and columns, (b) the baseline configuration.
 L. Virgin / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 135–142
Solving the set of linear simultaneous Eq. (1) we obtain the
dominant sway deflection: X 1 ¼ 4:466F with essentially no differ-
ence between this and X 2 . Furthermore, the vertical Y deflections
are effectively zero. Given the specific values used in the example
we get a sway deflection of about FL3 =ð16:79EIÞ. Solving a 6  6 set
of simultaneous equations is a relatively simple task (thanks to
Matlab) but not a hand-calculation, despite the fact that some of
the resulting deflections are quite small (h) and very small (Y).
Let’s simplify things by assuming that the frame elements are
axially stiff (relative to bending stiffness), and that the stiffness
of the horizontal beam is relatively large (compared to the col-
umns, we shall investigate this further later), then the sway deflec-
tion of the frame is effectively a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
spring characterized by: F ¼ ð2  12EI=L3 Þd, that is, eight times stif-
fer than the familiar cantilever result (now having two members
each effectively restrained against rotation at both ends), and
about 43% stiffer than our previous analysis in which the beam
had the same flexural rigidity (and length) as the columns. But
now the reduction to a SDOF allows a more systematic investiga-
tion of stiffness in terms of ‘easily set or measured’ parameters of
a structural system. This is an ideal context for 3D-printed speci-
mens to provide a practical hands-on augmentation to the intro-
duction of elastic flexural modeling including the stiffness method.
For our square portal frame we can assess the accuracy of the
pure sway approximation by varying the stiffness of the cross-
beam relative to the columns. In the general case this would
involve the length of the beam, but for the square frame we can
make a valid comparison using the ratio Ib =Ic . Fig. 3 summarizes
the resulting sway stiffness. The stiffness is nondimensionalized
by the Ib ¼ Ic case - we could have just as easily used the pure sway
case. In any case, we see that pure sway effectively occurs for
Ib =Ic ’8, corresponding to a rectangular cross-section in which
the beam is twice as thick as the columns. Similarly a frame with
equal flexural rigidity ðEIÞ in the beams and columns can also be
used to assess the influence of Lb =Lc on the sway behavior. The gen-
eral structure stiffness matrix for a portal frame can be found in
Appendix B.
4. The baseline case
In order to later conduct a systematic parametric study to shed
light on flexural stiffness we start by defining a standard ‘baseline’
case. Referring back to Fig. 2(b) (and the middle frame in Fig. 1) we
initially fix the following parameters: The ‘width’ b of the whole
frame is initially 20 mm, and the thickness d ¼ 2 mm for all frame
elements (including H, initially); the overall dimensions of the
frame are L ¼ 100 mm; and W ¼ 50 mm. The Young’s modulus
for ABS thermoplastic for the 3D printer used in this study was
taken as E ¼ 2:0 GPa.1 The frame was printed onto an integral rigid
base, and a measured force F was then applied via hanging weights
(in a horizontally clamped frame orientation), or using a load cell,
and the lateral deflection d measured using a standard proximity
laser (see Fig. 4), thus furnishing a force-deflection relation (linear
for relatively small deflections), the slope of which characterizes
the stiffness of the frame. According to the simple theory we should
expect F ¼ kd, where k  24EI=L3 , depending on the validity of the
SDOF assumption, otherwise the regular stiffness method can be
used.
The baseline frame was printed using a Stratsys printer [12]
using ABSplus - P430 production-grade thermoplastic, with a spec-
ification Young’s modulus in the range 1.65–2.1 GPa, but in the
computations we use E ¼ 2:0 GPa [13]. The Solidworks STL files
1
There are some relatively minor, but quite interesting uncertainties in this
estimate based on the subtleties of the printing process [14].
137
Fig. 3. The effect of the relative beam-to-column stiffness on the sway deflection of
a rectangular (square) frame.
were developed according to the baseline measurements and rela-
tive to the absolute resolution of the 3D printer. Although the res-
olution of most 3D printers continues to improve, we typically
focus most attention on the accuracy of the thicknesses, since the
thickness dimensions (which are typically small) also have a strong
influence on the stiffness (via I). The specimen was clamped by a
rigid vice at one end and the free end subject to a point load as
shown in Fig. 4. The force-deflection relation is shown within
Fig. 6(b) (later to be identified as frame B), in which some of the
measurements were repeated (e.g., loading and unloading, and
then turning the frame around and repeating) to provide a better
linear least-squares fit. The slope of this experimental line is
0.63 N/mm. Solving for the lateral deflection we make use of the
stiffness method (for which the stiffness matrix is given explicitly
in Appendix B) resulting in a lateral stiffness of 0.52 N/mm.
According to the simplified (pure sway) theory we would expect
k ¼ 0:67 N/mm. Assuming there is a reasonably high accuracy in
measuring the various parameters, the discrepancy could most
likely be ascribed to the Young’s modulus or rotation at the top
corners. However, we also chose to examine the validity of the
SDOF model, and we did this by changing the H; L and b parame-
ters. For example, it is likely that there is a little rotation at the cor-
ners of the portal frame, and thus we might expect an
experimental stiffness that is slightly lower than the (pure sway)
assumption of no rotation at the corners.
5. Plane frame variations
We then depart from the baseline case in order to assess the
effect of various parameters on both the stiffness and the assump-
tion on which the very simple (pure sway) stiffness relation is
based. We thus chose variations to the baseline with beam thick-
ness H increased from 2 mm to 8 mm; width b reduced from
20 mm to 10 mm; and the length of the columns L increased to
150 mm and also reduced to 50 mm (see Fig. 5). In typical multi-
story buildings the stiffness of the horizontal members (floors)
are somewhat stiffer than typical columns, and hence we tend to
be less interested in cases for which ðEb Ib =L3b  Ec Ic =L3c Þ. This
provides a permutation of frame geometries for which stiffness
can be compared systematically. Note that the 100 mm  50 mm
overall dimension was chosen (rather than the square frame) due
to practical limitations associated with the resolution of the 3D
138 L. Virgin / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 135–142

Fig. 4. (a) The baseline frame, (b) in the test configuration, (c) a frame with an intermediate member.

Fig. 5. Printed frames - variations to the baseline frame B.

printer and experimental measurements, i.e., these frames are rel-
The columns in Frame A are half the length of the columns in
atively flexible. Frame B, and thus we would expect this frame to be roughly
One of the advantages of this kind of parametric study, based on ð0:5Þ3 ¼ 8 times stiffer.
comparisons, is that, for example, the exact value of E is less prob-
The columns in Frame C are one and a half times the length of
lematic because all the frames are made of the same material, the columns in Frame B, and thus we would expect this frame
printed in the same manner, and tested under nominally the same to be roughly 1=ð1:5Þ3 ¼ 0:296 the lateral stiffness.
conditions [14]. It is also a not-uncommon student mistake to
The width of all the frame elements in Frame G are one half of
change more than one parameter at a time, thus making it difficult those in Frame B, and since I scales linearly with b we would
to assess sensitivities. expect half the lateral stiffness.
Six more frame geometries were then considered (and were
Frames A and D are both squares, and thus these specific results
later printed) with ðH; LÞ = (2, 50), (2, 150), (8, 50), (8, 100), can be located on Fig. 3 with coordinates: ðIb =Ic ¼ 1; k=kIb ¼Ic Þ and
(8, 150), (2,100), all values in mm, and where the last frame (later
ðIb =Ic ¼ 64; k=kIb ¼Ic ! 1:43Þ, respectively, and using the appro-
to be labeled G), has b ¼ 10. Increasing (decreasing) L decreases
priate non-dimensionalization for stiffness.
(increases) the overall lateral flexural stiffness of the frame; while
increasing H also increases the lateral flexural stiffness but in terms
We can also assess the SDOF sway approximation (referencing
of influencing the rotation at the free end(s), and thus the justifica-
column 8 of Table 1), where we use C ¼ 24 (pure sway) to normal-
tion for the simple SDOF assumption. The analytical results are
ize the results, with k=k0 ! 1 thus indicating the pure sway case:
summarized in Table 1.
Let’s use column 7 of Table 1 (k=kB ) to compare and contrast the

Frames D, E, and F (with their thick cross-beams) all conform
stiffness between frames (relative to the baseline case, kB .):
very closely to the pure sway case.
 L. Virgin / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 135–142
Table 1
Frame geometries (with reference to Figs. 2(b) and 5). Frame B is the baseline case; k0 is for pure sway.
Frame # H (mm) L (mm) b (mm)
A 2 50 20
B 2 100 20
C 2 150 20
D 8 50 20
E 8 100 20
F 8 150 20
G 2 100 10

Comparing Frames B and G we see that they approximate sim-
ilarly in sway deflection.

Comparing Frames A, B, and C we observe that the sway approx-
imation is better if the length of the columns L (relative to the
length of the beam W ¼ 50 mm) is large.
In summary, and based on the specific parameters we chose to
vary in this study, we confirm that the lateral stiffness for a frame
generally scales with Ec Ic =L3c , and that the SDOF sway approxima-
tion is increasingly justified with increasing Ib =Ic , but also with
the overall slenderness of the frame L=W (since the stiffness of
the beam relative to the column contributes to the joint rotation).
6. Experimental testing results
We can plot the measured force-deflection relation for all seven
frames (and their least-squares fits) superimposed in dimensional
terms as in Fig. 6(a). We observe how the height L of the frame
influences the stiffness, for example in going from frame A to frame
B to frame C. Fig. 6(b) is a plot of the same data for frames D, E, and
F, and scaled with respect to the column length (cubed), with EI
consistent between the frames. These three frames have the stiff
cross-beams and thus deform in a predominantly sway mode.
Superimposed on this data is a straight line that is the theoretical
pure sway relation FL3 ¼ 24EId, in which E ¼ 2:1 GPa.
A summary of the experimental results is contained in Table 2.
The relative stiffness effects can be extracted along the same lines
as the theoretical results in Table 1. However, the interesting thing
to note is the consistently higher stiffness of the 3D-printed frames
as compared with the theoretical model. This suggests the follow-
ing influences:

The Young’s modulus for the 3D printed plastic is probably a
little higher than the 2.0’ GPa assumed in the calculations
(independent tests [14] suggest a value of 2.1 GPa might be a
more accurate value, and still within the manufacturer’s
specifications).

Small tabs were included (printed) at the top corners to facili-
tate hanging the loads (see Fig. 4), and these might have a minor
stiffening effect on the top corners.

Fillets were used to mitigate the possibility of stress concentra-
tions at corners, the lengths of the columns were measured to
the underside of the cross-beam.

The measured thickness of the printed columns was typically
2.03 mm, as opposed to the nominal value of 2 mm. A small dif-
ference, but the stiffness via the second moment of area is
related to thickness in a cubic relation and would thus corre-
spond to a roughly 5% increase in stiffness.
All of the above would have a tendency to increase stiffness, and
bring the theoretical and experimental results closer together. That
is, the experimental results confirm the theoretical predictions to
within the uncertainty in system parameters. However, as empha-
139
k (N/mm) FL3 =dEI (pure sway = 24) k=kB k=k0
3.576 16.763 6.891 0.698
0.519 19.461 1 0.811
0.163 20.687 0.315 0.862
5.068 23.758 9.767 0.990
0.636 23.859 1.226 0.994
0.189 23.894 0.364 0.996
0.260 19.481 0.500 0.812
sized earlier it is the relative effect of geometric parameters that is
the major focus of this paper.
One of the key advantages of 3D printing is repeatability [15].
Three additional frame B’s were printed, tested, and the resulting
stiffness was measured over the range 0:63  0:03 N/mm. The
overall uncertainty in the measurements is due to variations in
the clamping, the manner in which the weights are attached,
etc., but, assuming Gaussian precision error distributions, the lin-
ear least squares fit gives a relatively accurate stiffness estimate.
Printing multiple copies of frames and repeat testing is also a use-
ful means of introducing students to experimental uncertainty. We
assume that the self-weight of the frames is negligible.
7. Other stiffness enhancements
Given the baseline configuration we can also make stiffness
changes via the addition of further structural frame elements.
Some other possibilities were shown in Fig. 7. It is again convenient
to focus on moment-carrying connections and point loads but that
still leaves considerable scope for conducting additional compara-
tive stiffness assessments.2
The first example is simply to add a diagonal bracing member
(e.g., Fig. 7(b)), that is oriented to ensure it carries tensile loads.
In this case, and using the square frame where both the beam
and columns have equal flexural rigidity, the lateral stiffness is
increased by a factor of about 370. This massive increase in stiff-
ness (which may make force-deflection measurements more chal-
lenging, at least using the same loading approach) is clearly due to
a high axial stiffness contribution, i.e., adding the appropriately
transformed diagonal stiffness contribution to the top right corner
of the frame, i.e., in the lower 3  3 elements in the structure stiff-
ness matrix in which the unbraced frame was relatively flexible.
However, on a practical issue we note that this type of frame tends
to induce compressive axial loading in other frame elements and
thus buckling may become an issue. But generally we find the tri-
angulation considerably increases lateral stiffness despite only a
relatively small increase in the weight of the structure. The bene-
fits of diagonal bracing are well-known of course, but it is easy
enough to add members in the 3D print. Adding an opposite diag-
onal provides added stiffness in spite of the direction of loading.
We choose the longest frame (F) and add an additional cross-
beam member (Fig. 7(c)), in which the new beam member is also
8 mm thick, located at a distance Z from the base (and Z can also
be conveniently varied according to student ID numbers), and we
call this frame I, as shown in Fig. 8(a). Now the frames act as a
two-story sway frame. Again applying a corner load and measuring
the corresponding sway deflection at the top level (d) results in a
stiffness of 0.96 N/mm. Based on the simplified sway assumption
we would expect this stiffness to be ðLF =LI Þ3 =2 ¼ 4 times the stiff-
2
In class I have used the last couple of digits of student ID’s to produce a spread of
geometries within certain bounds. Depending on the size of the class this will also
typically result in a few identical frames, and these have their use for assessing
measurement uncertainty [15].
140 L. Virgin / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 135–142

Fig. 6. (a) Measured force-deflection data and least squares fit stiffness for the seven frames, (b) nondimensionalized data for the sway frames (with stiff cross-beams).

Table 2
A comparison between experiment and theory of the frame geometries tested.

Frame # ktheo (N/mm) kexp (N/mm) ðk=kB Þexp kexp =ktheo

A 3.576 4.08 6.80 1.14

B 0.519 0.63 1 1.21
C 0.163 0.21 0.35 1.29
D 5.068 6.67 11.12 1.32
E 0.636 0.73 1.22 1.15
F 0.189 0.23 0.38 1.22
G 0.260 0.30 0.50 1.15

Fig. 7. Additional stiffness enhancements to the baseline frame.

Fig. 8. Additional stiffening effects, (a) a single additional cross-beam (frame I); (b) plus an additional diagonal bracing element.
 L. Virgin / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 135–142
Fig. 9. Some non-simple 3D-printed plane frames.
ness of frame F (which was measured at 0.23 N/mm). We then also
printed frame C with an additional mid-height horizontal frame
element (2 mm thickness), and we call this frame H. This frame
has greater flexibility due to not insignificant rotations at the
joints, as seen in its loaded condition in Fig. 4(c). A similar exper-
imental procedure results in a lateral stiffness measurement of
0.54 N/mm, i.e., somewhat less stiff than the frame with thicker
cross-beams. However, now the simple sway theory is inappropri-
ate, and the full stiffness (FEA) method used (within Solidworks
[16]) to produce a stiffness of 0.52 N/mm, with Solidworks using
data directly from the 3D-printed designs within the context of
print resolution, material properties, etc.
Taking this idea a little further, and allowing a degree of flexibil-
ity for demonstration purposes, we can consider the examples
shown schematically in Fig. 7(d,e), with a photographic image of
the frame in Fig. 7(e) shown for the lower-bay stiffened frame J
in Fig. 8(b). Again, despite a very modest increase in mass (weight)
of these frames, their lateral stiffness is very much greater, even to
the extent that the bay within which the diagonals are placed are
effectively rigid, and thus the sway of the frame is largely governed
by the stiffness of the columns without the bracing, and this of
course incorporates columns somewhat shorter than the overall
height of the frame, i.e., based on Z rather than L. Again applying
a corner load and measuring the corresponding deflection leads
to a stiffness of 1.88 N/mm. This is essentially ðLF =LJ Þ3 ¼ 8, eight
times stiffer than frame F (which was measured at 0.23 N/mm),
and twice the stiffness of frame I (which was measured at
0.96 N/mm). A stiffness of 1.80 N/mm was also measured for the
frame with a diagonal bracing element in the upper story: the
braced story acts effectively like a rigid panel with the lateral frame
stiffness governed by the columns in the unbraced (sway) story.
Finally, we can take this whole approach further and consider
(rigidly jointed) trusses of the type shown in Fig. 9. The lower
two (red) frames in this figure were tested beyond their elastic
limit, with the one on the left showing an overall permanent
deflection somewhat resembling elastic deformation, and the one
on the right showing a clear plastic deformation in a single (buck-
led) member. In these cases, with a relatively high number of joint
degrees of freedom we necessarily resort to the capabilities of
Solidworks or any other FEA package. Based on the earlier discus-
sion it is again clear that a relatively modest increase in added
weight can lead to a much enhanced lateral stiffness. These less
141
simple frames are ideal for longer term-length type student
projects.
8. Discussion and other practical considerations
As demonstrated here, 3D printing has a potentially useful role
to play in the teaching of the strength of materials and structural
analysis. Although 3D printing has focused quite naturally on
essentially rigid mechanical components especially in the manu-
facturing context, the increasing resolution and use of various
materials enables 3D-printed elastic slender structures to be used
to complement the teaching of engineering mechanics. This paper
has focused on the stiffness of slender plane frames: a key peda-
gogical stepping stone between single structural elements and
geometrically complex elastic continua.
By making isolated but consistent structural changes, which is
easily accomplished in 3D printing, it is then possible to gain an
appreciation for how stiffness depends on the geometric arrange-
ments of members within a frame. Considerations concerning
stress and ultimate limit states could also be addressed, but these
are not considered here (other than using small corner fillets to
avoid stress concentrations). Other extensions to this work can
easily be envisioned, for example, confirmation of the Maxwell-
Betti law of reciprocal deflections in the two-story frame. Further-
more, it would be easy to set-up a student competition based on,
perhaps, asking students to print a frame to exhibit a required stiff-
ness, within certain geometric constraints, or developing a stiff-
ness/weight measure a ratio that is especially important in
aerospace engineering for example.
Another aspect of 3D printing is that additional minor changes
that facilitate testing can be conveniently incorporated into a
design. For example, small ‘tabs’ with a hole were printed into
the corners of the frames for ease of attaching (point) loads. Print-
ing frames contiguous with relatively massive bases ensures fully
clamped boundary conditions.
It should be mentioned that ABS thermoplastic is not always
ideal: there is a minor anisotropy due to the orientation of print,
there may be small mechanical property variations due to material
creep, age of specimen, thermal environment, speed of loading, etc.
But again, since the emphasis in this paper has been on relative
stiffness effects these minor issues do not play a significant role.
142 L. Virgin / Engineering Structures 150 (2017) 135–142

Depending on the sophistication of the measuring device (an
OPTO NCDT 1302 proximity laser was used in this study [17]) it
is also relatively easy to measure linear natural frequencies, and
thus stiffness, given an easy measurement of mass. This is a natural
extension of the basic stiffness method but beyond the scope of the
linear static behavior described here.
in which C ¼ cos h and S ¼ sin h, where h is the angle (measured
counterclockwise) between the member in going from local to glo-
bal coordinates.
Appendix B. Structure stiffness matrix for a rectangular plane
frame

9. Concluding remarks
 
k11 k12
The teaching of structural analysis for frame-type structures K¼ ð3Þ
typically relies on the stiffness method, incorporating beam or k21 k22
beam-column elements, and utilizes a variety of techniques from in which
linear algebra. This is, of course, a subset of finite element analysis. 2 3
For non-simple geometries it may be difficult for students to retain ðAE=LÞB þ 12ðEI=L3 ÞC 0 6ðEI=L2 ÞC
6 7
a structural feel for how the stiffness of a structure is related to k11 ¼4 0 ðAE=LÞC þ 12ðEI=L3 ÞB 6ðEI=L2 ÞB 5;
geometry. 3D-printed plane frames can provide a beneficial practi- 6ðEI=L2 ÞB 6ðEI=L2 ÞB 4ðEI=LÞB þ 4ðEI=LÞC
2 3
cal appreciation, especially in terms of the how geometry affects ðAE=LÞB 0 0
lateral stiffness, and the extent to which simplifying assumptions, T 6 7
k12 ¼ k21 ¼ 4 0 12ðEI=L3 ÞB 6ðEI=L2 ÞB 5;
e.g., pure sway, are justified. Making changes to a baseline config- 0 2
6ðEI=L ÞB 2ðEI=LÞB
uration enables a direct comparative study to be conducted. Fur- 2 3
ðAE=LÞB þ 12ðEI=L3 ÞC 0 6ðEI=L2 ÞC
thermore, a comparison between theory and experimental data is 6 7
k22 ¼4 0 ðAE=LÞC þ 12ðEI=L ÞB 3 2
6ðEI=L ÞB 5:
easily achieved, based on simultaneously testing and analyzing
2 2
simple frame structures. Much of the behavior described in this 6ðEI=L ÞB 6ðEI=L ÞB 4ðEI=LÞB þ 4ðEI=LÞC
paper is based on simple back-of-the-envelope type calculations,
in which the B and C subscripts refer to beam and column
but even for moderately complex structures it is still straightfor-
ward to compare structural behavior of a physical specimen with respectively.
any number of FEA packages, but especially Solidworks, since the
printed specimens are drawn directly from Soliworks data files. References

Acknowledgement
The author appreciates the assistance of Joe Giliberto and a
number of undergraduates at Duke for assisting with the acquisi-
tion of data for this paper.
Appendix A. Beam stiffness matrix in global coordinates
kð1; 1Þ ¼ kð4; 4Þ ¼ kð1; 4Þ ¼ kð4; 1Þ ¼ ðEA=LÞC 2 þ ð12EI=L3 ÞS2
kð1; 2Þ ¼ kð2; 1Þ ¼ kð1; 5Þ ¼ kð5; 1Þ ¼ kð2; 4Þ ¼ kð4; 2Þ
¼ kð4; 5Þ ¼ kð5; 4Þ ¼ ðEA=LÞCS  ð12EI=L3 ÞCS
kð1; 3Þ ¼ kð3; 1Þ ¼ kð1; 6Þ ¼ kð6; 1Þ ¼ kð3; 4Þ ¼ kð4; 3Þ
¼ kð4; 6Þ ¼ kð6; 4Þ ¼ ð6EI=L2 ÞS
kð2; 2Þ ¼ kð5; 5Þ ¼ kð2; 5Þ ¼ kð5; 2Þ ¼ ðEA=LÞS2 þ ð12EI=L3 ÞC 2
kð2; 3Þ ¼ kð3; 2Þ ¼ kð2; 6Þ ¼ kð6; 2Þ ¼ kð3; 5Þ
¼ kð5; 3Þ ¼ kð5; 6Þ ¼ kð6; 5Þ ¼ ð6EI=LÞC
kð3; 3Þ ¼ kð6; 6Þ ¼ 4EI=L
kð3; 6Þ ¼ kð6; 3Þ ¼ 2EI=L
[1] Timoshenko SP. Strength of materials. New Jersey: Van Nostrand; 1977.
[2] MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release 2012b. The MathWorks, Inc, Natick,
Massachusetts, United States.
[3] Strang G. Introduction to linear algebra. Wellesley-Cambridge Press; 2009.
[4] Rubinstein MF. Matrix computer analysis of structures. Prentice-Hall; 1966.
[5] Przemieniecki JS. Theory of matrix structural analysis. Dover; 1968.
[6] Laursen HI. Structural analysis. McGraw-Hill Education; 1988.
[7] Weaver W, Gere JM. Matrix analysis of framed structures. 3rd ed. NY: van
Nostrand Reinhold; 1990.
[8] McGuire W, Gallagher RH, Ziemian RD. Matrix structural analysis. Wiley; 1999.
[9] Reddy JN. An introduction to the finite element method. McGraw-Hill; 2006.
[10] Kassimali A. Matrix analysis of structures. Cengage Learning; 2012.
[11] Hibbeler RC. Structural analysis. Pearson Education; 2008.
[12] http://www.stratasys.com/materials/fdm/absplus.
[13] Tymrak BM, Kreiger M, Pearce JM. ‘Mechanical properties of components
fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental
conditions’. Mater Des 2014;58:242–6.
[14] Virgin LN. On the flexural stiffness of 3D printer thermoplastic. Int J Mech Eng
Educ 2017;45:59–75.
[15] Wheeler AJ, Ganji AR. Introduction to engineering experimentation. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1996.
[16] http://www.solidworks.com/.
[17] http://www.micro-epsilon.com/download/manuals/man-optoNCDT-1302-en.
pdf.
ð2Þ