HISTORY OF STRENGTH OF MATERIALSIISTORY OF STRENGTH OF MATERTALS Copyright, 1955, hy the MGraw-1AI Pook Company, Ine, Printed in the eked Steves Ameren, Alleights reserved. This book, or prt thereof, seentet be mproduced in any form without permission othe publishers Litrary af Congress Catalog Cort Number: 52-1081 Preface ‘This book was written on the basis of lectures on the history of strength of materials which T have given during the last twenty-five years to students in engineering mechanics who already had knowledge of strength of materials and theory of structures. During the preparation of the book for publication, considerable material was added to the initial contents of the lectures, but the general character of the course remained unchanged. In writing the book, I had in mind dents who, after a required course in strength of materials, would like to go deeper into the subject and learn something about the history of the velopment of strength of materials. Having this in mind, Tid not try to prepare a repertorium of elasticity and give & complete bibliography of the subject. Such a bibliography can be found in existing books sueh as “A History of the Blasticity and Strength of Materials” by Todhunter and Pearson and the articles in volume 4, of the “Encyklopidie der ‘Mathematischen Wissenschaften,” edited by F. Klein and C. Mulle I wanted rather to follow tho example of Saint-Venant’s “Historique Abrégé”® and give to a larger circle of readers a historical review of the principal steps in the development of our science without going into too ‘much detail, In doing this, I considered it desirable to inelude in the history brief biographies of the most prominent workers in this tnd also to discuss the relation of the progress in sirength of material to the state of engineering edueation and to the industrial development ‘in various countries, ‘There is no doubt, for example, that the develop- ‘ment of railroad transportation and the introduetion of steel as structural material brought many nev problems, dealing with strength of structures, and had @ great influence on the development of strength of materials, ‘The development of combustion engines and light airplane structures has had a similar effect in recent times. Progress in strength of materials eamot be satisfactorily discussed without considering the development of the adjacent sciences such as theory of elasticity and theory of structures, ‘There exists a close interrelation in the development of those sciences, and it was necessary to include some of their history in the book. In doing so I have taken * Tho historical introduction which Saint-Venant added to his edition of Navier’s book: “Résumé des Legonvi Preface from the history of theory of elasticity only those portions elosely related to the development of strength of materials and omitted all material related to the purely theoretical and mathematical progress of that science, In the same way, in dealing with the development of theory of structures, the portions having only technical interest were not included in this book. In this writing, I have tried to follow the chronological form of presenta- tion and divided the history of the subject into several periods. For eich of those periods I have diseussed the progress made in strength of mate- ials and in adjacent sciences. This order was not alvays strictly followed, and in some discussions of the works of a particular author I have found it more expedient to put in the same place the review of all his publications, although some of them did not belong to the peviod under discussion In the preparation of the book, the existing publications on the history of sciences were vory helpful. In addition to the books already men- tioned I had in my hands the third edition of Navier’s book, Résumé des Legons . . . ,” edited by Saint-Venant and containing his “His- torque Abrégé . and his numerous notes which are now of great historieal interest. I consulted also Saint-Venant’s translation of Clebsch’s book on Elasticity, which in itself contains the history of clnsticity in its earlior periods. Among the biographies T found the following very useful: “Histoire des Seiences Mathématiques et Phy- siques” by M. Marie, “Geschichte der Technischen Mechanik,” by ‘MM, Ruhlman, several biographies in English, and collections of “Iloges ‘Academiques” by Frangois Arago and by Joseph Bertrand. For the review of newer publications it was necessary to go through many periodicals n various tongues. ‘This took a considerable amount of time, but the writer will feel completely rewarded if his work will save some labor for other workers in history of strength of materials Tam thankful to my eolleagues at Stanford University—to Prof. Alfred 8. Niles for his comments on the portions of the manuscript dealing with the early history of trusses and tho Maxwell-Mobr method of analyzing statically indeterminate trusses; and to Prof, Donovan Hf. Young who gave much constructive advice at the time af preparation of the mami~ seript. I am also very grateful to Dr. R. E. D. Bishop for his reading of the entire manuscript and his numerous important comments, and to ‘our graduate student, James Gere, who checked the proofs Stephen P, Timoshenko O ur. Vv. Contents Preface, Introduction. Tue Sremverm oy Marmmacs ix man Skvenranyen Conruny L. Galileo. 5G, 0 Ge 0 2, Galileo's work on strength of materials 3. Organization of the national academies of science 4. Robert Hooke... fas 5. Mariotte . ea Bastre Cunvns 6. The mathematicians Bernoulli 7. Euler gf 8 8 8. Euler's contribution to strength of materials 9. Lagrange . Srunsorn or Mareriats 18 nine Excumenrnt Conrony. 10, Engineering applications of strength of materials 11, Parent, Coma 12. Coulomb... 13. Experimental study of the mechanical properties of structural materials in the eighteenth eentury 14, Theory of retaining walls in the eighteenth century. 15. Theory of arches in the cighteonth century Smmenern of Maveiats uerwunn 1800 axp 1893, 16, L’Eeole Polytechnique - ne 17. Navier. 18. Navier’s book on strength of materials 19, The experimental work of French engineers between 1800 and 1838 5 20. The theories of arches and suspension bridges between 1800 and 1838, oa 21, Pongelet . se eed 22, Thomas Young | oem ul B 7 a 25 28 30 a 4B a 60 @VL vo. vin. _ Tan BuoiNsine oF TH Marieaamtcan Tawony oF Gontents 23, Strength of materials in England between 1800 and 18833 24. Other notable European contributions to strength of materials meine 25, Fquations of equilibrium in the theory of elasticity. 26. Cauchy : 27. Poisson 28, G. Lamé and B. P. E, Clapeyron 29. ‘The theory of plates. vont oF Marnntans BrrwnEn 1833 ANp 1867 bain and Hodgkinson 31. ‘The growth of German ougineering schools 32, Saint-Venant’s contributions to the theory of bending ‘of beams 88, Jouraweki’s analysis of shearing stresses in beams 34, Continuous beams 35, Bresse 36. H. Winkler Srunorm oy Marzmrars mW tux Evouurion or Ratwar Exermsnanc 87. Tubular bridges . 38, Barly investigations on fatigue of metals , 89, ‘The work of Wohler : 40, Moving loads 41, Tmpaet 42, ‘The early stages in the theory of trusses . 43. K. Culmann 4d, W. J. Macquora Rankine 45, J. C, Maxwell's contributions to the theory of structures 46, Problems of elastie stability. Column formaulas: 47. ‘Theory of retaining walls and arches between 1833 and 1867 ‘Tne Marmmmancan Tanony ov Enasrictry mprwexy 1833 axp 1867 48, The physical elasticity and "the elastic constant, con- troversy” 49, Early work in clasticity at Cambridge University 50, Stokes. Be 300, BarrédeSaint-Venant. 98 100 104 107 an irs 119 123, 129 135 ut at 6. 152 156 162 167 173 178 181 190 197 202 210 216 222 225 229 1x, XL. XI XII, Contents ‘The semi-inverse method EMG st 52. The later work of Saint-Venant, fas 53. Duhamel and Phillips see na 54, Franz Neumann Se ees as 35. G. R. Kirehhott A. Clebsch 37. Lord Kelvin moh 58, James Clerk Maxwell . a Srmexorn ov Maremans 16 Tum Prero 1867-1900 59, Mechanical Testing Laboratories 60, ‘The work of O. Mohr 61, Strain energy and Castigtiano’s theorera = 62, Elastic stability problems. . a 63, August Fippl P ‘Tamony oF SrnveTuREs IN tHe Penton 1867-1900 G4, Statically determinate trusses. . ata 65. Deflection of trusses... Shes ies ie (66. Statically indeterminate trusses Bheaa 67, Arches and retaining walls foo ‘Tumony oF Exasticrry mprween 1867 axp 1900 68. ‘The work of Saint-Venant’s pupils 69, Lord Rayleigh ‘ 70, Theory of elasticity in Fngland between 1867 and 1900 71. Theory of elasticity in Germany between 1867 and 1900 Ta, Solutions of two-dimensional problems between 1867 and 1900 Progress 1N SrreNGTH oF Marerrats Dunia wis ‘TWRN- ‘tier CENTURY 172. Proporties of materials within the elastie limit. 73. Fracture of brittle materials pa 7A. Testing of ductile materials 75. Strength theories oe 70. Croop of metals at elevated temperatures, | 77. Fatigue of metals. 78. Experimental stress analysis, ‘Dnwory ow Brasmicrry purrxe Tae Prrtop 1900-1950 79. Kelix Klein. 80, Ludwig Prandtl 81. Approximate methods of solving elasticity problems 233 238 242 246 252 255, 260 268: 276 283 288. 208, 200 304 ait 316 228 828, 334 839 Bae 850 355, 302 372 377 383 389) 302 307xiv. Contents 82, ‘Throo-dimensional problems of elastivity 83. Two-dimensional problems of elasticity ©... 84, Bending of plates and shells 85, Elastie stability’ 86, Vibrations and impact ‘Tnwony oF SraucronES DoRING THE Prieto 1900-1950 87. New methods of solving statically indeterminate systems 88, Arches and suspension bridges c 89, Stresses in railway tracks 90. Theory of ship structures ‘Name Index Subject Index 401 405 408. 412 a7 492, 426, 430 44 449 Introduction From the earliest times when people started to build it was found nec essary to have information regarding the strength of structural materials 50 that rules for determining safe dimensions of members eould be drawn ‘up. No doubt the Egyptians had some empirieal rales of this kind, for ‘without them it would have been impossible to erect their great_mon- ‘uments, temples, pyramids, and obelisks, some of which still exist. The Greeks further advanced the art of building.! They developed statics, which underlies the mechanies of materials, Archimedes (287-212 v.c.) gave 6 rigorous proof of tho conditions of equilibriumlaf a lever and out~ Iined methods of determining centers of gravity of bodies., He used his theory in the construction of various hoisting devices. ‘The methods ‘used by the Greeks in transporting the columns and arehitraves of the ‘temple of Diana of Ephesus are shown in Figs. 1 to 3. ‘The Romans were great builders. Not only some of their monuments ‘and temples remain, but also roads, bridges, and fortifications. We know something of their building methods from the book by Vitruvius," ‘afamous Roman architect and engineer of the time of Emperor Augustus. ‘In this book, their structural materials and types of construction are Aesexibed. Figure 4 shows a type of hoist used by the Romans for lifting heavy stones. ‘The Romans often used arches in their buildings. Figure 5 shows the arches in the famous Pont du Gard, a bridge which is in service to this day in southern France. A comparison of the propor tions of Roman arches with those of the present time indicates that nowadays much lighter structures aro built. ‘Tho Romans had not the advantages provided by streas analysis. ‘They did not know how to select the proper shape and usually took semicircular arches of compara tively emall span, ‘Most of the knowledge that the Greeks and Romans accumulated in the way of structural engineering was lost during the Middle Ages and only since the Renaissance has it been recovered, ‘Thus when the famous. Htalian architect Fontana (1543-1607) erected the Vatican obelisk at the onder of Pope Sixtus V, (Fig. 6), this work attracted wide attention from 2X sfieavan, TATE” Prenc trasation by De Boul, ruses 1816, 2For sigh @ Gdnpatoon, a6 Aled Loger, ‘Les ‘Travaux Publics wu temps des Ronin" p13, Pais 1875. 12 Hislory of Steengih of Materials Kuropean engineers. But we know that the Bxyptians had raised several such obelisks thousands of years previously, after cutting stone from the {quarries of Syene and transporting it on the Nile, Indeed, the Romans had carried some of the Egyptian obelisks from their original sites tand erected them in Rome; thus if seems that, the engineers of the six- res. 1 tod. Bottom, Greoks’ methods of transporting ealumns. Top, type of hoist ‘wed hy the omens, teenth century were not as well equipped for such difficult tasks as their predecessors. During the Renaissance there was a revival of interest. in science, and art leaders appeared in the field of architecture and engineering. Leonardo da Vinei (1452-1519) was a most outstanding man of that period. He was not only the leading artist of his time but also a great scientist and engineer. He did not write books, but much information Introduction 5 was found in his notebooks! regarding his great discoveries in various ranches of science. Leonardo da Vinci was greatly interested in ‘mechanics and in one of his notes he states: “Mechanics is the paradise of ‘mathematical science beeause here we come to the fruits of mathematics.” Leonardo da Vinei uses the method of moments to got the correct solu- tions of such problems as those shown in Figs. 8a and 8. He applies the notion of the principle of virtual displacements to analyze various systems of pulleys and levers such as are used in hoisting devices. It seems that Stee S 10.5. The famous Pont da Gard Leonardo da Vinci hal a correct iden of the thrust produced by an arch. In one of his manuseripts there is a sketch (Fig. 9) of two members on which a vertical load @ is acting and the question is asked: What forces are needed at a and b to have equilibrium? From the dotted-line par- allelogram, in the sketch, it can be concluded that Leonardo da Vinei had the correct answer in this case. Leonardo da Vinei studied the strength of structural materials exper- imentally. In his noto ‘Testing the Strength of Iron Wires of Various Lengths” he gives the sketeh shown in Fig. 10, and makes the following remark: “The object of this test is to‘find the load an iron wire can carry. ‘Attach an iron wire 2 braccia long to something that will firmly support 1A bibliography of Leonardo da Vines work is given in the Bneyelopacia Britan- nies, Also a selection of pasaages from the manuseripts will be found in the book: hy Eilward MeCurdy, “Leonardo da Vinci's Note-booke.”” Seo ao the book by W. B. Parsons, “Kuginoers and Engineering in the Renaissance,” 1999. From the Intter ook Fig. 10 and the quotations given in this article are taken,Introduction 5 it, then attach a basket or any similar container to the wire and feed into the basket some fine sand through a small hole placed at the end of a hopper. A spring is fixed so that it will close the hole as soon as the wire breaks, ‘The basket is not upset while falling, sinee it falls through a very short distance. ‘The weight of sand and the location of tho fracture of the wire are to be recorded. ‘The test is repeated several times to check the results. ‘Then a wire of one-half the previous length is tested and the additional weight it carries in recorded; then a-wire of one-fourth length is tested and so forth, noting each time the ultimate strength and the location of the fracture.” Teonardo da Vinci also considered the strength of beams and statod a general principle as follows: “In every article that is supported, butis free to bend, and is of uniform cross section and material, the part that is farthest from the supports will bend the most.” He recommends that & sories of tests be made, starting with a be 1 definite ‘weight when supported at both ends, and then taking su f= A =H ages 2 \ 3 Q (a) & I { o) tb cua is pu dog ae wily mod xescrding in would cary. Hs oncunon was ‘ht te rengthot bees teppeted Stl ends rca avery os he length aa ty oa Rw Sous seca otesdenios of bens having as end Sd na Ge oter free and states: ‘If a beam 2 braccia long supports 100 libbre, a beam 1 braceia long will support 200, As many times as the shorter length is Fic. 7. Leonardo da Ving. a that could eazry Fr. 8. ht these See Parsong, \Bnginoers and Bngineering in the Renaisanc," p. 726 Hislory of Strength of Materials contained in the longer, so many times more weight willit support than the longer one.”” Regarding the effect of depth upon the strength of a beam there is no definite statement in Leonardo da Vinci's notes. Apparently Leonardo da Vinci made some investigations of the strength of columns. He states that this varies inversely as their lengths, but directly s some ratio of their cross sections, ‘These briofly diseussed accomplish- ments of da Vinei represent. perhaps the first attempt to apply staties in finding tho forces acting in members of structures and also the first experi- ments for determining the strength Rec, 9. Fra, 10. Te Leonardo da Vinci, of structural materials. However, these important advances were buried in da Vinei’s notes and engineers of the fifteenth and sixtoonth eenturies continued, as in the Roman ers, to fix the dimensions of structural ele- ments by relying only on experience and judgment. "Dhe first attempts to find the safe dimensions of structural elements analytically were made in the seventeenth century. Galileo's famous book “Two New Sciences” shows the writer's efforts to put the methods applicable in stress analysis into a logical sequence. It represents the beginning of the science of strongth of materials * See Knglish translation by Henry Grew and Alfonso de Salvio, New York, 1083, CHAPTER 1 ‘The Strength of Materials in the Seventeenth Century* 1, Galileo (1564-1642) Galileo was born in Pisa? and was a descendant of a noble Florentine house. Galileo received his preliminary education in Latin, Greek, and logic in the monastery of Vallom- brosa, near Florence. In 1581, he was placed in Pisa University, where hhe was to study modicine. But very soon the lectures on mathematios began to attract his attention, and he threw all his energy into study- ing the work of Euclid and Arehi- medes. It seems that, through Cardan’s books,? he became quainted with Leonardo da Vinei's discoveries in mechanies, In 1585, Galileo had to withdraw from the University, due to lack of means, without taking the degree and he relumed to his home in Florence. = ‘There, Galileo gave private lessons Fic. 11. Galileo in mathematies and mechanies and continued his‘own scientific work. In 1586, he made a hydrostatic balance for measuring the density of various substances and he eastied. The history of mechantes of materials during the seventoonth and eighteenth centuries is discussed inthe preface tothe book “"Teaité Analytiquece la rsintancs des Solides” by P. 8. Girard, Paris, 1798. #800 J. J. Fae, “Gallo, His Lite and Work,” New York, 1908, Soe also the ovel “The Stargazer” by Zsolt de Harsanyi, English transition by P. Tabor, New ‘York, 1939, * See P. Dulin, “Les Origines de ls Statique," p. 39, Paris, 1005. Cardan (1601 1576) discusses mechanies ip some of his mathematical publications, Tis preenta- tion of this seienes is very similar to that of Leonardo la Vinci, aud it is wally sssumed that- Caran had access to the latter's manseripts and notebooks, -8 History of Sirength of Materials out investigations of the centers of gravity in solid bodies. ‘This work made him known, and in the middie of 1589 he was given the math- ematical professorship at Pisa when he was twenty-five and « half years old. During his time in Pisa (1580-1592), Galileo continued his work in ‘mathematies and mechanics and made his famous experiments on falling, bodies. On the basis of these experiments the treatise “De Motu Gravium” was prepared in 1590, and it represents the beginning of dynamies as we know it today. ‘The principal conclusions of this wot swere (1) all bodies fall from the same height in equal times; (2) in falling, the final velocities are proportional to the times; (3) the spaces fallon through are proportional to the squares of the times. ‘These conclusions ‘were in complete disagreement with those of Aristotelian mechanics, but Galileo did not hesitate to use them in his disputes with the represent atives of the Aristotelian school, ‘This produced feelings of animosity against the young Galileo, and finally he had to leave Pisa and return to Florence, At this difficult time some friends helped him to get the profes- sorship in the University of Padua, In connection with the official appointment there the following statement! was made at that time: “Owing to the death of Signor Moletti, who formerly lectured on Math- ‘ematies at Padua, the Chair has been for a long time vacant, and, being a most important one, it was thought proper to defer electing any one to fil it till euch time as a fit and eapable candidate should appear. Now Domino Galileo Galilei has been found, who lectured at Pisa with very great honour and success, and who may be styled the first in his profes- sion, and who, being ready to come at oneo to our said university, and there to give the said lectures, it is proper to accept him.” On Dee. 7, 1992, Galileo embarked upon his new duties with a dis- ‘eourse “which has Won the greatest admiration, not only for its profound Knowledge, but for its eloquence and elegance of diction” During his first years at Padua, Galileo was extraordinarily active. His lectures became so well known that students from other Buropean counties eume to Padua. A room capable of containing 2,000 students had to be nsed eventually for these leetures, In 1504 the famous treatise on mechanies ("Della Seienza Meceaniea”) was written. In this treatise various prob- lems of statics were treated by using the principle of virtual displace- ments, The treatise attained a wide circulation in tho form of manu- soript copies. Atabout the same time, in connection with some problems in shipbuilding, Galileo beeame intevested also in the strength of mato- vials, Very soon astronomy attracted Galiloo’s attontion. It is known that during his fist years in Padua, Galileo taught the Ptolemaic system, fas was the custom in those days. But in a letter to Kepler, as early as {See the book by J.J. Fahis, p. 36 The Strength of Materials in the Seventeenth Century 9 1507, he states: “Many years ago I became a convert to the opinions of Copernicus, and by this theary have succeeded in explaining many phe- nomena which on the contrary hypothesis are altogether inexplicable,” A rumor of the invention of w telescope reached Padua in 1609, and, on the strength of meager information, Galileo succeeded in building one of his own with o magnifying power of 32, With this instrument, he made Vio, 12. The living room in Galleo's vil wt Arcert 4 series of outstanding astronomical discoveries. He showed that the ‘Milky Way consists of lesser stars, described the mountainous nature of the moon, and, in January, 1610, he saw Jupiter's satellites for the first time, ‘This last diseovery had a great effect on the further development. of astronomy, for the visible motion of this system became a very power ful argument in favor of the Copernican theory. All these discoveries ‘made Galileo famous. He was nominated “philosopher and mathemati- ian extraordinary” to the grand duke of Tuscany and in September,0 History of Strength of Materials 1610, abandoned Peclua for Florence. In his new position Galileo had no duties other than to eontinue his scientific work and he put all his energy into astronomy. He discovered the peculiar shape of Saturn, observed e phases of Venus, and deseribed the spots upon the sun. ‘All these brilliant diseoveries and Galileo's enthusiastic writing in fevor of the Copernican theory attracted the attention of the Chureh, The DISCORS!I DIMOSTRAZIONI MATEMATICHE intornod due nuoue feiense Ateneni ala Mecanica & i Movimentt Locaty signer GALILEO GALILEI LINCEO, Filofofoe Matematica primariode Serenifimo Grand Duca di Tofeana. conn Append delcatrodigranitie lean Sd IN LEIDA, Apptelfo gliElevisi. 1. v, ce maxvut. Fie. 18, ‘The ttle page of Galileo's hook, “Two New Sciences.” discrepancy between the new view of the planetary system and that of the Scriptures was brought before the Inquisition and, in 1615,.Cialileo seecived a semiofficial warning to avoid theology and limit himself to physieal reasoning. In 1616, the great work of Copernicus was con~ demned by the Church, and, during the seven succeeding years, Galileo stopped publishing his controversial work in astronomy. In 1623, Maffeo Barberini, a friend and admirer of Galileo, was elected to the pontifical throne, and Galileo, expecting a more favorable treatment of his astro- ‘The Sirength of Materials in the Seventeenth Century u nomical publications, started writing his famous book dealing with the two ways of regarding the universe, which appeared in print in 1632. Since the book definitely favored the Copernican theory, its sale was pro- hibited by the Church and Galileo was called to Rome by the Inquisition ‘There he was condemned and had toreadhisrecantation. Afterhisreturn to Florence, he had to live in his villa at Aveerti in strict seclusion, which he did during the remaining eight years of his life. Tt was then that he wrote his famous book Two New Sciences,” in which he recapitulated the results of all his previous work in the various fields of mechanics. The book was printed by the Elzevirs at Leiden in 1638 (Fig, 13). A portion of the book,’dealing with the mechanical propertios of structural materials and with the strength of beams, constitutes the first publication in the field of strength of materials, and from that date the history of mechanies of elastie bodies begins, 2, Galileo's Work on Strength of Materials {Al Galileo's work on the mechanics of materials is included in the first ‘ovo dialogues of his book “Two New Sciences.” He begins with several observations made during his visits to a Venetian arsenal and discusses geometrically similar structures. He states that if we make structures geometrically similar, then, with increase of the dimensions, they become weaker and weaker. In illustration he states: “A small obelisk or column or other solid figure can certainly be laid down or set up without danger of breaking, while very large ones will go to pieces under tho slightest provocation, and that purely on account of their own weight.” To prove this, he starts with a consideration of the strength of materials in simple tension (Fig. 14) and states that the strength of a bar is proportional to its cross-sectional area and is inde pendent of its length. This strength of the bar Galileo calls the “absolute resistance to fracture” and he gives some figures relating to the ultimate strength of copper. Having the absolute resistance Pi. 4, Galileo's of a bar, Galileo investigates the resistance to fracture stration of ton~ ‘of the same bar if it is used as a cantilover with the “ '% lond at the end (Fig. 15). He states: ‘It is clear that, if the cylinder breaks, fracture will occur at the point. B where the edge of the mortise ‘ots as a fulcrum for the lever BC, to which the force is applied; the thick ness of the solid BA is the other arm of the lever along which is located "Galileo, “Two Now Sciences,” Fnglish translation by Henry Crew and Alfonso, de Salvio, ‘The Macmillan Company, New York, 19832 History of the resistance, This resistanee opposes the separation of the part BD, lying outside the wall, from that portion lying inside. From the preced- ing, it follows that the magnitude of the force applied at ( bears to the ‘magnitude of the resistance, found in the thiekness of the prism, @ the attachment of the base HA to its contiguous parts, the same ratio irength of Materials = (a) | ) Pia. 16. hich half the length BA bears to the length BC."* We see that Galileo ‘assumes that when fracture oecurs the “resistance” is uniformly distri- buted over the cross section BA (Fig. 16b). Assuming that the bar has ‘rectangular cross section and that the material follows Hooke’s law up to fracture, we obtain the stress distribution shown in Fig, 16c, The resisting couple corresponding to this stress distribution is equal only to ‘one-third of the moment assumed by Galileo. Thus for such a material * See “Two New Selene,” Knglish translation, p, 136, The Strength of Materials in the Seventeenth Century B Galileo's theory gives a value threo times larger than the actual breaking load for the load at C. Actual materials do not follow Hooke's law until they fail, and the stress distribution at fracture is different from that shown in Fig. 16¢ in such a way as to diminish the discrepaney between ‘the prediction of Galileo's thoory and the true value of the breaking load, On the basis of his theory Galileo draws several important conclusions. ‘Considering a rectangular heam, he puts the question: “How and in what proportion does a rod, or rather a prism whose width is greater than its thiekness, offer more resistance to fracture when the foree is applied in the direetion of its breadth than in the direction of its thickness.” Using his assumption (Fig. 168), he gives the correct answor: “Any given ruler or prism, whose width exceeds its thickness, will offer greater resistance to fracture when standing on edge than when lying flat, and this in the ratio of the width to the thickness.”* Continuing the discussion of the eantilever-beam problem and keeping a constant cross section, Galileo eoneludes that the bending moment, due to the weight of the beam, inereasos ns the square of the length. Keeping the length of a circular eylinder constant and varying its radius, Galileo finds that the resisting moment inereases as the cube of tho radius. ‘This result follows from the faet that the “absolute” resistance is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the eylinder and that the arm of the resisting couple is equal to the radius of the cylinder. Considering geometrically similar cantilever beams under the action of their weights Galileo concludes that, while the bending moment at the built-in end increases as the fourth power of the length, the resisting ‘moment is proportional to the cube of the linear dimensions. ‘This indi- cates that the geometrically similar beams are not equally strong. The ‘beams become weaker with increase in dimensions and finally, when thoy fare large, they may fail under the action of their weight only. He also ‘observes that, to keep the strength constant, the cross-sectional dimen sions must be increased at a greater rate than the length, With these considerations in mind, Galileo makes the following impor- tant general remark: “You can plainly sce the impossibility of increasing the size of structures to vast dimensions either in art or in nature; like- ‘vise the impossibility of building ships, palaces, or temples of enormous size in such a way that their oars, yards, beams, iron-bolts, and, in short, all their other parts will hold together; nor can nature produce trees of extraordinary size because the branches would break down under their ‘own weight; so also it would be impossible to build up the bony structures ‘of men, horses, or other animals so as to hold together and perform their normal functions if these animals were to be increased enormously in 3800 Two New Sciences,” Fnglish translation, p, 118.u History of Strength of Materials height; for this increase in height can be aezomplished only by employing f naterial whieh is harder and stronger than usual, or by enlarging the size Sf the bones, thus changing their sbape until the form and appearance of ‘the animals suggest’ monstrosity. « « Ti the size of a body be diminished, the strength of that body is not diminished in the same proportion; indeed the smaller the body the greater its relative strength, ‘Thus a small dog eould prob- ably carry on his back two or three dogs of his own size; but I believe that a horse could not carry even one of his own size.”" Galileo also considers a beam on two supports (Fig, 17) and finds that the bending moment is greatest under the load and is proportional to the product ad, s0 that to produce fracture with the smallest load this load Trust be put at the middle of the span. He obsorves that the possibility ‘nists of economizing material by reducing the size of the cross section near the supports, x = = Sy 7 'P ) re. 18 Feo Galileo gives a complete derivation of the form of a cantilever beam of ‘equal strength, tho cross section of which is rectangular, Considering first a prismatieal beam ABCD (Fig. 184), he observes that part of the ‘material ean be removed without affecting the strength of the beam, He shows also that if we remove half of the material and take the beam in the form of the wedge ABC, the strength at any cross section ZV will be ‘insufficient sinco, while the ratio of the bending moment at KF to that at ‘AB is in the ratio EC:AC, the resisting moments, proportional to the Square of the depth, will bo in the ratio (EC)*:(AC)* at these cross sections. ‘To have the resisting moment varying in the samo proportion tus the bending moment, we must take the parabolic curve BFC Og. 188). This satisfies the requirement of equalst yength, since for a parab- sin.a hers (ar _ BC tabs ~ 40 Finally, Galileo diseustes the strength of hollow beams and stats! tha uch bass ane smplayed in artand still more often in nature—in a 1 Soo Two New Sciences,” English translation, p. 190, 1 See "Two New Seionees,” English translation, p. 160. The Strength of Materials in the Seventeenth Cendury 18 ‘thousand operations for the purpose of greatly increasing strength without adding to weight; examples of these are seen in the bones of birds and in ‘many kinds of reeds which ave light and highly resistant both to bending and breaking, For if a stem of straw which earries a head of wheat heavier than the entire stalk were made up of the same amount of mate- rial in solid form, it would offer less resistance to bending and breaking, ‘This is an experience which has boon vorified and confirmed in practice where itis found that a hollow lance or « tube of wood or metal is much stronger than would be a solid one of the same length and weight. x Comparing a hollow eylinder with a solid one of the same cross-sectional area, Galileo observes that their absolute strengths are the same and, since the resisting moments are equal to their absolutestrength multiplied by the outer radius, the bending strength af the tube exceeds that of the solid cylinder in the same proportion as that by which the diameter of the tube exeeeds the diamoter of the eylinder. 3. Organization of the National Academies of Science During the seventeenth century there was a rapid development in ‘mathematics, astronomy, and in thenatural sciences. Manylearned men became interested in the aciences and experimental work in particular reveived much attention, Many of the universities were controlled by the Church, and since this was not favorable for scientific progress, learned societies were organized in sevoral European counties. ‘The ‘purpose of those was to bring men with scientific interests together and to facilitate experimental work. ‘This movement started in Italy where, in 1560, the Aceadlemia Secretorum Naturae was organized in Naples. The famous Accademia dei Lincei was founded in Rome in 1603, and Galileo was one of its membors. After Galileo's death, the Accademia del Cimento was organized in Florenee with the support of the grand duke Ferdinand de’ Medici and his brother Leopold. Galileo's pupils Viviani and Torricelli participated in the work of that academy, In te volume of the academy publications, considerable space is devoted to such prob- Jems as those of the thermometer, barometer, and pendulum and also to various experiments relating to vacua. ‘Tn England at about the same time, seientific interest drew a group of ‘men together, and they met whenever suitable opportunities presented themselves. ‘The mathematician Wallis describes these informal meet- ings as follows: “ About the year 1645, while I lived in London, beside the conversation of divers eminent divines as to matters theological, Lhad the opportunity of being acquainted with divers worthy persons, inquisitive into natural philosophy, and other parts of human learning; and partic- tlarly of what hath been ealled the ‘New Philosophy’ or ‘Experimental ‘Saga di Naturali Baperionse,” 20 ed, Florence, 1691.