The ASCE 7-22 Standard [1], Sect. 12.9.1.6 specifies when P-delta effects should be considered when running a modal response spectrum analysis for seismic design. In the NBC 2020 [2], Sent. 4.1.8.3.8.c gives only a short requirement that sway effects due to the interaction of gravity loads with the deformed structure should be considered. Therefore, there may be situations where second-order effects, also known as P-delta, must be considered when carrying out a seismic analysis.
The data exchange between RFEM 6 and Allplan can be done using various file formats. This article describes the data exchange of a determined surface reinforcement using the ASF interface. This allows you to display the RFEM reinforcement values as level curves or colored reinforcement images in Allplan.
The National Building Code of Canada (NBC) 2020 Article 4.1.8.7 provides a clear procedure for earthquake methods of analysis. The more advanced method, the Dynamic Analysis Procedure in Article 4.1.8.12, should be used for all structure types except those that meet the criteria set forth in 4.1.8.7. The more simplistic method, the Equivalent Static Force Procedure (ESFP) in Article 4.1.8.11, can be used for all other structures.
Wind direction plays a crucial role in shaping the outcomes of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations and the structural design of buildings and infrastructures. It is a determining factor in assessing how wind forces interact with structures, influencing the distribution of wind pressures, and consequently, the structural responses. Understanding the impact of wind direction is essential for developing designs that can withstand varying wind forces, ensuring the safety and durability of structures. Simplified, the wind direction helps in fine-tuning CFD simulations and guiding structural design principles for optimal performance and resilience against wind-induced effects.
Both the determination of natural vibrations and the response spectrum analysis are always performed on a linear system. If nonlinearities exist in the system, they are linearized and thus not taken into account. They are caused by, for example, tension members, nonlinear supports, or nonlinear hinges. This article shows how you can handle them in a dynamic analysis.
The response spectrum analysis is one of the most frequently used design methods in the case of earthquakes. This method has many advantages. The most important is the simplification: It simplifies the complexity of earthquakes so far that the design can be performed with reasonable effort. The disadvantage of this method is that a lot of information is lost due to this simplification. One way to moderate this disadvantage is to use the equivalent linear combination when combining the modal responses. This article explains this option by describing an example.
The events of recent years remind us of the importance of earthquake engineering in seismic regions. For you as an engineer, the design of structures in earthquake-prone areas is a constant trade-off between economic efficiency – the financial possibilities – and structural safety. If a collapse is inevitable, engineers must estimate how it will affect the structure. This article aims to provide you with an option on how to perform this estimation.
The “Modal Analysis” add-on in RFEM 6 allows you to perform modal analysis of structural systems, thus determining natural vibration values such as natural frequencies, mode shapes, modal masses, and effective modal mass factors. These results can be used for vibration design, as well as for further dynamic analyses (for example, loading by a response spectrum).
Modal analysis is the starting point for the dynamic analysis of structural systems. You can use it to determine natural vibration values such as natural frequencies, mode shapes, modal masses, and effective modal mass factors. This outcome can be used for vibration design, and it can be used for further dynamic analyses (for example, loading by a response spectrum).
In RFEM 6, seismic analysis can be done by using the Modal Analysis and the Response Spectrum Analysis add-ons. Once the spectral analysis has been performed, it is possible to use the Building Model add-on to display story actions, interstory drifts, and forces in shear walls.
Seismic Analysis in RFEM 6 is possible using the modal analysis and the response spectrum analysis add-ons. As a matter of fact, the general concept of the earthquake analysis in RFEM 6 is based on the creation of a load case for the modal analysis and the response spectrum analysis, respectively. The standard groups for these analyses are set in the Standards II tab of the model’s Base Data.
In the case of a reinforced concrete model represented as a mixed structure consisting of surface and member elements, the design is carried out in different modules.
The interface to Autodesk Revit is installed automatically during the installation of RFEM 5 or RSTAB 8. Subsequent installation of the plug‑in is possible through the execution of Revit-Installer.exe.
In the age of BIM, data exchange between the various disciplines of structural engineering is becoming increasingly important. Since each software has its own specifications with regard to the description of cross-sections and materials, RFEM and RSTAB offer a conversion table (mapping file).
Once you have determined the final tendon geometry in RF‑TENDON, exporting the model to a CAD program can be useful. For this purpose, the module includes the option to export the file in the .dxf file format. You can select the export function by right-clicking the workspace. After selecting the DXF format and the storage location, additional settings can be made.
In RFEM and RSTAB, you can define a user-defined combination scheme. This can be helpful if a desired combination scheme cannot be created from a standard. In such cases, you can export the created load cases to Excel, create the scheme there, then import them to RFEM or RSTAB.
In RFEM, RSTAB, and SHAPE-THIN, you can create user-defined print templates ("Printout Report Template") and printout headers ("Report Headers"). These templates can also be transferred to other computers and used there.
The ISM file (ISM = Integrated Structural Modeling) in RFEM and RSTAB provides an interesting option for exchanging data. If you export a model to this data format, you can view and analyze it with the free ISM viewer from Bentley.
A PDF version of the printout report can be created in two ways. The most common way is to use a PDF printer that must be previously installed. The printer will be controlled like a real printer.
When modeling in RFEM, double lines may be created. To quickly find and delete them, if necessary, RFEM 5 allows you to export overlapping lines. This is possible, for example, in Excel or in a separate group of sections.
RF-/DYNAM Pro - Equivalent Loads allows you to determine the loads due to equivalent seismic loads according to the multi‑modal response spectrum method. In the example shown here, this was done for a multi‑mass oscillator.
"A good tool is half the job done": This proverb could be applied equally to the software industry. The more a program is task-tailored, the more efficiently the tasks can be solved. The variety and complexity of today's problems, especially in structural engineering, require specifically tailored solutions. Creating your own programs by means of textual programming requires in-depth knowledge and a great ability to abstract. Understandably, only very few engineering offices face this challenge. For this reason, there are additional software solutions providing the user with a visual development environment.
The National Building Code of Canada (NBC) 2015 Article 4.1.8.7 provides a clear procedure for earthquake methods of analysis. The more advanced method, the Dynamic Analysis Procedure in Article 4.1.8.12, should be used for all structure types except those that meet the criteria set forth in 4.1.8.7. The more simplistic method, the Equivalent Static Force Procedure (ESFP) in Article 4.1.8.11, can be used for all other structures.
The response spectrum analysis is one of the most frequently used design methods in the case of earthquakes. This method has many advantages. The most important is the simplification: It simplifies the complexity of an earthquake to such an extent that an analysis can be carried out with reasonable effort. The disadvantage of this method is that a lot of information is lost due to this simplification. One way to mitigate this disadvantage is to use the equivalent linear combination when combining the modal responses. This article explains this option by describing an example.
Structures are naturally three-dimensional. However, because it was impossible to perform calculations on three-dimensional models easily in the past, the structures were simplified and broken down into planar subsystems. With the increasing performance of computers and related software, it is often possible to do without these simplifications. Digital trends such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and new options for creating realistic visualized models reinforce this trend. But do 3D models really offer an advantage, or are we just following a trend? The following text presents some arguments for working in 3D models.