FAQ 003524 EN
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.
A member's boundary conditions decisively influence the elastic critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling Mcr. The program uses a planar model with four degrees of freedom for its determination. The corresponding coefficients kz and kw can be defined individually for standard-compliant cross-sections. This allows you to describe the degrees of freedom available at both member ends due to the support conditions.
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.
- What is the meaning of the warning message ER061) Minimum amplifier of design loads <1?
- In the RF‑/STEEL EC3 add-on module, I have selected two bracings with the same size as the shear panel type in the "Parameters" window for a beam to be designed. Thus, the beam should be supported laterally in the middle. Why is the eigenvector arbitrary anyhow?
- Why are the equivalent member designs grayed out in the Stability tab when activating the plastic designs by using the partial internal force method (RF‑/STEEL Plasticity)?
- When calculating a cable using the STEEL EC3 add‑on module, there is the error message "Incorrect characteristic stresses for material No. 1! Please correct this in Table 1.2."
- I design an asymmetric cross-section and get the message: "Non-designable: ER051) Moment about z‑axis on asymmetric cross-section, taper or set of members." Why?
- 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.
- Why is there no stability analysis displayed in the results despite the activation of the stability analysis in RF‑/STEEL EC3?
- In RF‑/STEEL EC3, is the "Elastic design (also for Class 1 and Class 2 cross-sections)" option under "Details → Ultimate Limit State" considered for a stability analysis when activated?
- Why do I get a design ratio for the cross-section check according to 22.214.171.124 in the STEEL EC3 add-on module? Why is a * added to Equation (6.36)?
- I design a frame with a taper (docked cross-section). STEEL EC3 classifies the taper in Cross-Section Class 3. Accordingly, the elastic resistances are taken into account, which is very unfavorable. According to the standard, the taper should be categorized in Class 1, and thus the plastic reserve should also be usable.