We provide hints and tips to help you get started with the basic program RFEM.
FAQ 003310 | When designing a beam, I would like to neglect the torsion included in the stability analyses using the filters described in Knowledge Base Article #001498.<div>I define the filter, but the torsion warning appears at the same x‑location again. Do the design internal forces change, or why is that?</div>
Video
First Steps with RFEM
Question
When designing a beam, I would like to neglect the torsion included in the stability analyses using the filters described in Knowledge Base Article #001498.I define the filter, but the torsion warning appears at the same x‑location again. Do the design internal forces change, or why is that?
Answer
The design internal forces do not change because no load modification has been defined. The torsional stresses are calculated once with Gamma M1 1.0 and once with Gamma M1 according to the National Annex, so that the warning can appear twice. If the filter is increased once more in the following, another x-location (or loading from LC/CO/RC) can also become governing for the warning.Keywords
Dlubal FAQ Limiting value Stability analysis Torsion Warning ST320 Frequently Asked Question FAQ about Dlubal Question and Answer about Dlubal
Links
Write Comment...
Write Comment...
Contact us
Do you have any questions about our products or need advice on selecting the products needed for your projects?
Contact us via our free e-mail, chat, or forum support or find various suggested solutions and useful tips on our FAQ page.
![[ZH] CP 001195 | Escalator trusses for commercial complexes in China](/-/media/Images/netgenium/thumbnails/2/9/6/9/0/2969057/2969057.png?la=en-US&mw=348&mlid=778F6A831FED4D2FA656FFF961A20361&hash=2AEC0DB03498BBDDE3B95DC6CA479E37882113F3)
![[CS] CP 001194 | Renovation of an Existing Water Tower into an Office Building](/-/media/Images/netgenium/thumbnails/2/9/6/6/6/2966620/2966620.png?la=en-US&mw=348&mlid=2D4F0809D4D4457F82F841389157725E&hash=853209349F7D0FB84CA3FEB5B16C2FDDFD1E4468)
![[DE] CP 001193 | Hobro Arrest Prison Scaffolding, Denmark](/-/media/Images/netgenium/thumbnails/2/9/6/6/6/2966608/2966608.png?la=en-US&mw=348&mlid=009873CC759B413CAB8A477C624F3044&hash=2F048EAABE9F49074C3ADC9738AAC79E2BABFFE6)
![[CS] CP 001192 | Spiral Staircase with Glass Steps, Zlín, Czech Republic](/-/media/Images/netgenium/thumbnails/2/9/6/6/5/2966590/2966590.png?la=en-US&mw=348&mlid=A3AF70BD148D40BC871A91395A99FC76&hash=F5253F4DA06971854FAC1C54DD6B2CA6CC828FEC)
New
Manual adjustment of the buckling curve according to EN 1993-1-1
The RF-/STEEL EC3 add-on module automatically transfers the buckling line to be used for the flexural buckling analysis for a cross-section from the cross-section properties. In particular for general cross -sections, but also for special cases, the assignment of the buckling line can be adjusted manually in the module input.
![Distribution of Forces and Moments in Column Base According to [1]](/-/media/Images/website/img/000001-010000/009601-009700/009638.png?la=en-US&mlid=7D34CEAAE7354583A29169095622B515&hash=1C29D4703C59F464778B8861B097C4BCC2E2CBC1)
SHAPE-THIN | Cold-Formed Sections
SHAPE-THIN determines the effective cross-sections according to EN 1993-1-3 and EN 1993-1-5 for cold-formed sections. You can optionally check the geometric conditions for the applicability of the standard specified in EN 1993‑1‑3, Section 5.2.
The effects of local plate buckling are considered according to the method of reduced widths and the possible buckling of stiffeners (instability) is considered for stiffened sections according to EN 1993-1-3, Section 5.5.
As an option, you can perform an iterative calculation to optimize the effective cross-section.
You can display the effective cross-sections graphically.
Read more about designing cold-formed sections with SHAPE-THIN and RF-/STEEL Cold-Formed Sections in this technical article: Design of a Thin-Walled, Cold-Formed C-Section According to EN 1993-1-3.
- I compare the flexural buckling design according to the equivalent member method and the internal forces according to the linear static analysis with the stress calculation according to the second-order analysis including imperfections. The differences are very large. What is the reason?
- I cannot see any members if the RF-/STEEL EC3 add-on module is selected as a "load case," why?
- To which axes refer the support rotations and support eccentricities in RF‑/STEEL EC3 Warping Torsion?
- What does the load application point in RF-/STEEL EC3 Warping Torsion refer to?
-
When designing a beam, I would like to neglect the torsion included in the stability analyses using the filters described in Knowledge Base Article #001498.
I define the filter, but the torsion warning appears at the same x‑location again. Do the design internal forces change, or why is that?
-
What are the options in RFEM or RSTAB for determining the ideal elastic critical moment for any cross-sections and systems/loads?
Is it also possible to design flat steel (brackets, flat steel stringers of staircases)? - Why do I get large differences for the design of a longitudinally stiffened buckling panel in comparison with the German and Austrian National Annex?
- How can I create a curved or arched section?
- How are the signs for the release results of a line release and line hinges interpreted?
- How can I perform the stability analysis in RF‑/STEEL EC3 for a flat bar supported on edges, such as 100/5? Although the cross-section is rotated by 90° in RFEM/RSTAB, it is displayed as lying flat in RF‑/STEEL EC3.
