Did you find your question?
If not, contact us via our free e-mail, chat, or forum support, or send us your question via the online form.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- How can I display the stresses in the stress points in RF‑STEEL Members?
- What is the difference between the RF‑/STEEL and RF‑/STEEL EC3 add-on modules?
- In the RF‑/STEEL add-on module, I am trying to design a cross-section created in SHAPE‑MASSIVE. However, the cross-section is classified as invalid. What is the reason?
- 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 have modified cross-section properties or reduced stiffnesses of a members in RFEM/RSTAB. After a new calculation, the deformation of the structural system has adjusted itself to the new cross-section properties. However, this change is not taken into account when performing design in add-on modules.
- Why do I obtain much higher design ratios in RF‑/STEEL than for cross-section design in RF‑/STEEL EC3?
- The design ratio of the cross-section check is different for the RF‑/STEEL and RF‑/STEEL EC3 add-on module. What is the reason?
- For a cross-section from the cross-section library of RFEM/RSTAB, the stresses calculated with RF‑/STEEL differ from the stresses of the same cross-section calculated with SHAPE‑THIN. What is the reason?
- Why RF‑/STEEL does not display the same maximum internal forces when calculating a result combination, as it is in the results of the result combination itself?
Why do I get different results when calculating stresses of flat, square or octagonal steel, compared to the manual calculation?
Especially in the case of the shear stresses due to shear force and torsion, they deviate considerably.