FAQ 004148 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.
- For a buckling analysis, FE‑BUCKLING determines the governing shear stress of τ = 7.45 kN/cm², while RF‑/STEEL gives the result of the maximum shear stress of τ = 8.20 kN/cm². Where does this difference come from?
- 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?
- 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?
- Which modules are responsive via the COM interface RS‑COM or RF‑COM?
- 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?