Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Deriving Analytical Solutions Using Symbolic Matrix Structural Analysis: Part 2 -- Plane Trusses

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single open-source symbolic analysis program can turn any 2D truss under point loads into exact closed-form expressions for displacements, reactions, and axial forces, with full agreement against commercial finite…

desk verdict A useful open-source symbolic MSA tool, but the 'full agreement' validation claim is undercut by a sign mismatch in Table 20 that the authors need to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16573 v1 pith:OX2S6W3G submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CE cs.NAmath.NA

Vagelis Plevris , Afaq Ahmad This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEcs.NAmath.NA MSC 74S0568W30
keywords matrixstructuralanalysissymboliccomputationplanetrussesclosed-formsolutionssensitivityanalytical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper extends an established symbolic matrix structural analysis workflow from continuous beams to plane trusses. It claims that any two-dimensional truss with arbitrary geometry, supports, and point loads can be solved symbolically, yielding exact expressions for nodal displacements, support reactions, and axial forces in terms of symbolic parameters such as $EA$, $L$, $H$, and $P$. Because the outputs are analytic, sensitivity analysis reduces to taking partial derivatives with respect to any input. The authors validate their program against two commercial finite element packages and a published closed-form benchmark, reporting full agreement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the symbolic element stiffness matrix $\frac{EA}{L}\begin{bmatrix} c^2 & cs \\ cs & s^2 \end{bmatrix}$ in global coordinates, with $c=\cos\theta$ and $s=\sin\theta$, assembled through the standard matrix structural analysis procedure. The program's model description uses node coordinates and element connectivity to derive lengths and orientations automatically, which is what lets it handle arbitrary geometries without manual calculation. Symbolic solution of the reduced linear system then produces output expressions; the same symbolic representation makes partial derivatives with respect to any parameter available by simple symbolic differentiation.

What would settle it

Run the program on a truss with a known closed-form solution not among the five examples—say a Pratt truss with an odd number of panels—and compare the symbolic vertical deflection at midspan with the corresponding literature formula; any coefficient mismatch would falsify the generality claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the standard matrix structural analysis procedure—element stiffness matrix, rotation transformation, global assembly, and solution of the reduced linear system—can be executed entirely symbolically for plane trusses, not just numerically. The program accepts symbolic node coordinates, element connectivities, member stiffness products, supports, and loads, and returns closed-form results for all outputs. The paper demonstrates this on five examples of increasing size, culminating in an 18-element symmetric truss where the derived vertical displacement of the central node exactly reproduces Eq. (7) from the literature. This is, according to the paper, the first time such analytical solutions are generated for arbitrary 2D truss configurations by a single open-source program.

Load-bearing premise

The results are only as trustworthy as the assumption that the commercial software, after having its shear effects artificially minimized, solves exactly the same idealized axial-only, small-displacement truss model as the symbolic program; if the assumptions differ in any way the comparison misses, the perfect match could be coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, engineers can obtain a parameterized formula for any truss quantity of interest once, then explore the design space without re-running a solver for each parameter set.
  • Sensitivity analysis becomes a matter of reading off partial derivatives, so optimizers can use exact gradients instead of finite differences.
  • The same symbolic assembly should extend to 3D trusses and frames, as the paper itself suggests, since the core mechanism is unchanged.
  • Because $E$ and $A$ always appear together as a product, the formulas reveal which combined parameters actually matter, simplifying design insight.
  • Educational use: students can see exactly how load, span, height, and stiffness enter each displacement, rather than receiving black-box numerical outputs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's hybrid symbolic-numerical suggestion implies a practical recipe for very large trusses: keep only the few parameters a designer can vary, replace the rest with numbers, and the expression size stays readable—a testable extension would be to measure expression complexity growth with panel count.
  • The shear-area-modifier validation trick suggests that the symbolic program's main assumption is not just truss behavior but shear-free beam kinematics; comparing against a solver that includes shear deformation would reveal how much the closed-form results change, a check the paper does not perform.
  • Because the closed-form displacement formulas are algebraic in $H$ and $L$, they could be used to spot singular configurations (for instance $H=0$ or $L=0$) that cause numerical solvers to behave poorly; a useful extension would be cataloguing such degeneracies.
  • The exact formulas provide a natural benchmark for verifying other numerical finite element codes, much as the literature formulas are used here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a MATLAB program that performs symbolic Matrix Structural Analysis (MSA) for plane trusses under point loads, producing analytical expressions for nodal displacements, support reactions, and element axial forces. The methodology is standard MSA: the element stiffness matrix is derived symbolically, assembled globally, and solved with MATLAB's Symbolic Math Toolbox. The program is open-source and validated against SAP2000, EngiLab Truss.2D, and a published analytical formula by Tinkov. The paper also discusses sensitivity analysis via symbolic differentiation and reflects on the trade-off between expression complexity and practical usability.

Significance. If the results are correct, this open-source tool has genuine educational and parametric-study value: it provides exact, interpretable formulas for truss behavior and enables direct sensitivity analysis without re-running numerical simulations. The validation approach—comparison against two commercial FEM packages and a literature formula—is appropriate in principle, and the use of a symbolic toolbox provides a form of machine-checkable derivation. The contribution is incremental rather than groundbreaking, and the manuscript's central claim of 'full agreement' is currently undermined by inconsistencies in the validation tables as printed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.1, Table 20] The central validation claim is not supported by Table 20. For elements 5 and 6, the numeric values of the symbolic expressions are -90.1388 and +90.1388, respectively, while the SAP2000 results are +90.138 and -90.139. The magnitudes agree but the signs are reversed in the same table, and the text states that 'the results are identical, apart from minor differences in decimals.' Because positive axial force is defined as tension and the other rows agree in sign, this cannot be dismissed as a global convention difference. As printed, the table either contains a transcription error, the SAP2000 data are misassigned, or the symbolic expressions for elements 5 and 6 have incorrect signs. In any case, the displayed evidence contradicts the full-agreement claim. The authors must correct the table or the surrounding text and re-verify Example 3 before the validation can be accepted.
  2. [§7.2, Table 21] Table 21 is captioned as 'Node displacements for Example 3 ... Comparison with EngiLab Truss.2D Pro,' but the text in §7.2 states that the validation is for the fourth example. The displacement values listed (Node 6, 7, 9, 11) match those in Table 14 for Example 4, so the caption is a mislabel. This cross-reference error, combined with the Table 20 problem, makes the validation section unreliable as written. The authors should correct the caption and audit all example numbers throughout §7.
  3. [§6, Tables 3–19 and §8, Eqs. (9)–(11)] Many analytical expressions are garbled by typesetting or OCR artifacts: square-root radicals are missing or misplaced in Tables 3, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 (e.g., Table 13 element 5 appears as '224\n2\nP H L\nL\n+−' and Table 17 Node 6 Dy appears as '10( ) 2 3'), and the matrices in Tables 2, 6, and 10 are not rendered correctly. Because the paper's contribution is precisely these analytical expressions, this is not merely cosmetic: readers cannot verify or reuse the formulas. Please provide a clean, correctly typeset version of all equations and tables and check that every radical and fraction is unambiguous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.3] The sentence 'The third numerical example is the truss shown in Figure 4' should refer to Figure 5, which depicts the 5-node, 7-element truss of Example 3. Also, 'Table 6 shows the details of the model' should be 'Table 10.'
  2. [§6.5] The sentence 'The truss is shown in Figure 6' should refer to Figure 7, the truss taken from Tinkov's work. The current text points the reader to the wrong figure.
  3. [§3, Figure 1 caption] The caption of Figure 1 reads '2D Euler–Bernoulli beam element with 6 DOFs,' but the figure and the accompanying text describe a 2D truss element with two local axial DOFs. This caption is inconsistent with the element being defined in Eq. (1).
  4. [§7.1] The statement that SAP2000 'includes shear deformations by default in all frame and truss models' is imprecise, and the role of the shear-area modifier (set to 10^6) deserves clarification, because axial forces in a truss are generally independent of shear flexibility and the modifier primarily affects displacements. Please specify which output quantities are sensitive to this adjustment.
  5. [§2, Reference [4]] The self-citation to Part 1 (reference [4]) is used for continuity and is not load-bearing, but if Part 1 is still an arXiv preprint rather than a peer-reviewed publication, the paper should state its status so readers can find it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symbolic MSA derivation is self-contained, and the validation relies on independent external benchmarks rather than on the paper's own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The symbolic element stiffness matrix in Eq. (1) and the global stiffness matrix transformation in Eq. (5) are cited to an external textbook, Ochsner and Makvandi [42], and the program then solves the assembled symbolic equilibrium system for displacements, reactions, and axial forces. The resulting analytical expressions are therefore computed from standard, independently established MSA equations, not from the quantities being predicted. The self-citation to Part 1 [4] is used only to state continuity of the research program ('building on previous work that focused on continuous beams') and does not supply any load-bearing premise for the plane truss formulation. Validation is performed against two external commercial packages, SAP2000 and EngiLab Truss.2D, and against Tinkov's published closed-form result [38], which is an independent literature benchmark; Eq. (7) is Tinkov's formula substituted with the stated parameters, and the agreement with the program's Table 17 expression is a genuine external check, not a fitted or renamed input. The paper does contain internal consistency problems in the validation presentation: in Table 20, element 5 and element 6 axial forces have opposite signs between the symbolic numeric values (-90.1388 and +90.1388) and the SAP2000 column (+90.138 and -90.139), and Table 21 is headed 'Example 3' while the values are from Example 4. These are correctness and reporting issues that undermine the printed validation evidence, but they are not circularity: the symbolic results are not defined in terms of the benchmark results, nor is any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Overall, no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies on the standard 2D truss stiffness formulation and on assumptions of linear elasticity, small displacements, and point loads; no parameters are fitted to measured data and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Plane truss element stiffness matrix in Eqs. (1)-(5), cited from [42].
    The entire derivation rests on the standard 2D truss stiffness matrix and transformation; the paper does not re-derive them.
  • domain assumption Linear elastic material, small displacements, point loads at nodes only
    These assumptions define the scope of the MSA model and are stated in Section 3 and the examples.
  • domain assumption Euler-Bernoulli theory neglects shear deformation, matched in SAP2000 by setting shear area modifier to 10^6.
    Used in Section 7.1 to justify validation consistency; the reference solution depends on this modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deriving Analytical Solutions Using Symbolic Matrix Structural Analysis: Part 2 -- Plane Trusses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OX2S6W3G

@misc{pith2026241116573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deriving Analytical Solutions Using Symbolic Matrix Structural Analysis: Part 2 -- Plane Trusses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OX2S6W3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16573}
}
read the original abstract

This study extends the use of symbolic computation in Matrix Structural Analysis (MSA) to plane (2D) trusses, building on previous work that focused on continuous beams. An open-source MATLAB program, hosted on GitHub, was developed to perform symbolic analysis of 2D trusses under point loads for any configuration. Using MATLAB's Symbolic Math Toolbox, the program derives analytical expressions for displacements, support reactions, and axial forces, providing a deeper understanding of truss behavior. The symbolic approach also supports efficient and scalable sensitivity analysis by directly computing partial derivatives of outputs with respect to input parameters, enhancing design exploration and optimization. This tool serves as a valuable resource for both engineering practice and education, offering clear insights into parameter relationships and enriching the understanding of structural mechanics. The accuracy of the symbolic results has been rigorously validated against two commercial finite element software programs and results from the literature, with full agreement, confirming the validity and generality of the methodology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Li, and H.S

    Liu, W.K., S. Li, and H.S. Park, Eighty Years of the Finite Element Method: Birth, Evolution, and Future. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2022. 29(6): p. 4431-4453 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09740-9

    doi:10.1007/s11831-022-09740-9 2022

  2. [2]

    Plevris, V. and G. Tsiatas, Computational Structural Engineering: Past Achievements and Future Challenges. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2018. 4(21): p. 1 -5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00021

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Mazumder, Editor

    Mazumder, S., Chapter 1 - Introduction to Numerical Methods for Solving Differential Equations, in Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, S. Mazumder, Editor. 2016, Academic Press. p. 1-49. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-849894-1.00001- 9

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-849894-1.00001- 2016

  4. [4]

    Plevris, V. and A. Ahmad, Deriving Analytical Solutions Using Symbolic Matrix Structural Analysis: Part 1 - Continuous Beams. ArXiv e -prints, 2024(arXiv:2411.03514) DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.03514

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03514 2024

  5. [5]

    Lagaros, Y

    Papadrakakis, M., N.D. Lagaros, Y. Tsompanakis, and V. Plevris, Large Scale Structural Optimization: Computational Methods and Optimization Algorithms. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2001. 8(3): p. 239 -301 DOI: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02736645

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02736645 2001

  6. [6]

    Plevris, and N.A

    Lagaros, N.D., V. Plevris, and N.A. Kallioras, The Mosaic of Metaheuristic Algorithms in Structural Optimization. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2022. 29: p. 5457–5492 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09773-0

    doi:10.1007/s11831-022-09773-0 2022

  7. [7]

    Journal of Symbolic Computation, 2012

    Moses, J., Macsyma: A personal history. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 2012. 47(2): p. 123-130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsc.2010.08.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsc.2010.08.018 2012

  8. [8]

    Farahmand-Tabar, S. and K. Aghani, Chapter 2 - Matrix Analysis of Framed Structures , in Practical Programming of Finite Element Procedures for Solids and Structures with MATLAB®, S. Farahmand-Tabar and K. Aghani, Editors. 2024, Elsevier. p. 29 -116. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15338-9.00007-1. Deriving Analytical Solutions Using Symbolic Matri...

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15338-9.00007-1 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Geisel, A. and F. Svaricek, A MATLAB Toolbox for Structural Analysis of Linear Systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 2019. 52(17): p. 7 -12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.018

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Yang, Editor

    Yang, B., Chapter 6 - Static analysis of constrained multispan beams , in Stress, Strain, and Structural Dynamics (Second Edition), B. Yang, Editor. 2023, Academic Press. p. 183-

    2023

  3. [11]

    MATLAB Guide to Finite Elements: An Interactive Approach

    Kattan, P.I., MATLAB guide to finite elements: An interactive approach. MATLAB Guide to Finite Elements: An Interactive Approach. 2008. 1 -429.DOI: 10.1007/978 -3-540- 70698-4

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    Papazafeiropoulos, G. and V. Plevris, OpenSeismoMatlab: New Features, Verification and Charting Future Endeavors. Buildings, 2024. 14(1): p. 304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010304

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Yang, Editor

    Yang, B., Chapter 9 - Dynamics of particles and rigid bodies , in Stress, Strain, and Structural Dynamics (Second Edition) , B. Yang, Editor. 2023, Academic Press. p. 351 -

    2023

  6. [14]

    Yang, Editor

    Yang, B., Chapter 14 - Dynamic analysis of constrained, combined, and stepped beams , in Stress, Strain, and Structural Dynamics (Second Edition) , B. Yang, Editor. 2023, Academic Press. p. 801-872. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818563-6.00019-5

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2021

    François, S., et al., Stabil: An educational Matlab toolbox for static and dynamic structural analysis. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2021. 29(5): p. 1372 -1389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22391

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Plevris, V. and G. Solorzano, A Collection of 30 Multidimensional Functions for Global Optimization Benchmarking. Data, 2022. 7(4): p. 52 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/data7040046

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Clausen, M

    Andreassen, E., A. Clausen, M. Schevenels, B.S. Lazarov, and O. Sigmund, Efficient topology optimization in MATLAB using 88 lines of code. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2011. 43(1): p. 1 -16 DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158- 010-0594-7

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2001

    Sigmund, O., A 99 line topology optimization code written in Matlab. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2001. 21(2): p. 120 -127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001580050176

    2001 doi

  11. [19]

    Solorzano, G. and V. Plevris, Optimum Design of RC Footings with Genetic Algorithms According to ACI 318 -19. Buildings, 2020. 10(6): p. 1 -17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10060110

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Arora, Editor

    Arora, J.S., Chapter 7 - Optimum Design with MATLAB® , in Introduction to Optimum Design (Third Edition), J.S. Arora, Editor. 2012, Academic Press: Boston. p. 275-298. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381375-6.00007-3

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Ferreira, A.J.M. and N. Fantuzzi, Bernoulli 2D Frames , in MATLAB Codes for Finite Element Analysis: Solids and Structures . 2020, Springer International Publishing: Cham. p. 105-121. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47952-7_7

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2024 DOI

    MathWorks, Symbolic Math Toolbox™ User's Guide. 2024 DOI

    2024

  15. [23]

    2004, Birkhäuser Boston: Boston, MA

    Lynch, S., A Tutorial Introduction to MATLAB and the Symbolic Math Toolbox , in Dynamical Systems with Applications using MATLAB®. 2004, Birkhäuser Boston: Boston, MA. p. 1-13. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-8156-2_1. Vagelis Plevris and Afaq Ahmad 27

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Attaway, Editor

    Attaway, S., Chapter 14 - Advanced Mathematics, in MATLAB (Fifth Edition), S. Attaway, Editor. 2019, Butterworth -Heinemann. p. 527 -581. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- 12-815479-3.00014-3

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Valentine, D.T. and B.D. Hahn, Chapter 17 - Symbolics toolbox, in Essential MATLAB for Engineers and Scientists (Eighth Edition) , D.T. Valentine and B.D. Hahn, Editors. 2023, Academic Press. p. 351-368. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-32-399548-1.00024-2

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Asadi, Editor

    Asadi, F., Symbolic Calculations in MATLAB® , in Applied Numerical Analysis with MATLAB®/Simulink®: For Engineers and Scientists , F. Asadi, Editor. 2023, Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham. p. 55-71. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19366-8_2

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2017: Springer Cham, ISBN: 978-3-319-52003-2.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-52003-2

    Mureşan, M., Introduction to Mathematica® with Applications . 2017: Springer Cham, ISBN: 978-3-319-52003-2.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-52003-2

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, Springer International Publishing: Cham

    Smith, E., Maple, in Introduction to the Tools of Scientific Computing . 2022, Springer International Publishing: Cham. p. 219 -244. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031- 16972-4_10

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Cywiak, M. and D. Cywiak, SymPy, in Multi-Platform Graphics Programming with Kivy: Basic Analytical Programming for 2D, 3D, and Stereoscopic Design . 2021, Apress: Berkeley, CA. p. 173-190. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-7113-1_11

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Eriksson, A. and C. Pacoste, Symbolic software tools in the development of finite elements. Computers & Structures, 1999. 72(4): p. 579 -593 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045- 7949(98)00333-2

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    Tönhardt, and C

    Amberg, G., R. Tönhardt, and C. Winkler, Finite element simulations using symbolic computing. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 1999. 49(4): p. 257 -274 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4754(99)00054-3

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    Computers & Structures,

    Pavlović, M.N., Symbolic computation in structural engineering. Computers & Structures,

  25. [33]

    Chen, C.-W

    Levy, R., C.-S. Chen, C.-W. Lin, and Y.-B. Yang, Geometric stiffness of membranes using symbolic algebra. Engineering Structures, 2004. 26(6): p. 759 -767 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.12.011

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    2006, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    Murphey, T., Symbolic Equations for the Stiffness and Strength of Straight Longeron Trusses, in 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. 2006, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. p. 6298-

    2006

  27. [35]

    Computers & Structures, 1995

    Renton, J.D., Automated derivation of structural formulae. Computers & Structures, 1995. 56(6): p. 959-967 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(94)00567-M

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    Skrinar, M. and T. Pliberšek, On the derivation of symbolic form of stiffness matrix and load vector of a beam with an arbitrary number of transverse cracks. Computational Materials Science, 2012. 52(1): p. 253 -260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2011.07.013

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Journal of Symbolic Computation, 2014

    Roque, C.M.C., Symbolic and numerical analysis of plates in bending using Matlab. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 2014. 61-62: p. 3 -11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsc.2013.10.005

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Magazine of Civil Engineering, 2015

    Tinkov, D.V., Comparative analysis of analytical solutions to the problem of truss structure deflection. Magazine of Civil Engineering, 2015. 57(5): p. 66 -73 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5862/MCE.57.6. Deriving Analytical Solutions Using Symbolic Matrix Structural Analysis: Part 2...

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Kirsanov, M. and D. Tinkov, Analytical calculation of the deflection of the lattice truss. MATEC Web Conf., 2018. 193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819303015

    2018

  32. [40]

    Magazine of Civil Engineering, 2018

    Kirsanov, M., Analytical calculation of the frame with an arbitrary number of panels. Magazine of Civil Engineering, 2018. 82(6): p. 127 -135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18720/MCE.82.12

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Dasgupta, Editor

    Dasgupta, G., Truss Analysis: A Structural Mechanics Tour of the FEM —Nodal Equilibrium and Compatibility, in Finite Element Concepts: A Closed -Form Algebraic Development, G. Dasgupta, Editor. 2018, Springer New York: New York, NY. p. 43 -63. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1...

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Öchsner, A. and R. Makvandi, Rods and Trusses, in Finite Elements for Truss and Frame Structures: An Introduction Based on the Computer Algebra System Maxima , A. Öchsner and R. Makvandi, Editors. 2019, Springer International Publishing: Cham. p. 9 -42. DOI https://doi.org/10....

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Öchsner, A. and R. Makvandi, Maxima—A Computer Algebra System, in Finite Elements for Truss and Frame Structures: An Introduction Based on the Computer Algebra System Maxima, A. Öchsner and R. Makvandi, Editors. 2019, Springer International Publishing: Cham. p. 3-7. DOI https:...

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Charalampakis, A.E. and I. Chatzigiannelis, Analytical solutions for the minimum weight design of trusses by cylindrical algebraic decomposition. Archive of Applied Mechanics,

  37. [45]

    Muftu, Editor

    Muftu, S., Chapter 5 - Finite element analysis of planar bars and trusses, in Finite Element Method, S. Muftu, Editor. 2022, Academic Press. p. 139 -186. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821127-4.00005-0

    2022 doi

  38. [223]

    DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818563-6.00018-3

    doi

  39. [430]

    DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818563-6.00012-2

    doi

  40. [2003]

    2121-2136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00286-4

    81(22): p. 2121-2136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00286-4

    doi

  41. [2018]

    39-49 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-017-1271-8

    88(1): p. 39-49 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-017-1271-8

    doi

  42. [6311]

    DOI https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-2123

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.