Turbulence modeling in CFD, using URANS and DDES models, is essential for accurately simulating wind-structure interactions. URANS balances cost and unsteady flow capture, while DDES provides greater accuracy in complex flows at a higher computational cost.
To evaluate whether it is also necessary to consider the second-order analysis in a dynamic calculation, the sensitivity coefficient of interstory drift θ is provided in EN 1998‑1, Sections 2.2.2 and 4.4.2.2. It can be calculated and analyzed using RFEM 6 and RSTAB 9.
For the ultimate limit state design, EN 1998‑1, Sections 2.2.2 and 4.4.2.2 require a calculation considering the second‑order theory (P‑Δ effect). This effect may be neglected only if the interstory drift sensitivity coefficient θ is less than 0.1.
Creating a validation example for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a critical step in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of simulation results. This process involves comparing the outcomes of CFD simulations with experimental or analytical data from real-world scenarios. The objective is to establish that the CFD model can faithfully replicate the physical phenomena it is intended to simulate.
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. As an engineer, you have to constantly weigh economic efficiency – and the financial possibilities – against structural safety when designing buildings. 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.
In this paper, a novel approach was developed to generate CFD models at the community-level by integrating building information modeling (BIM) and geographical information systems (GIS) to automate the generation of a high-resolution 3-D community model to be employed as an input for a digital wind tunnel using RWIND.
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).
In RFEM 6, it is possible to define line welds on lines between surfaces and calculate the weld stresses using the Stress-Strain Analysis add-on. This article will show you how to do it.
The dynamic analysis in RFEM 6 and RSTAB 9 is divided into several add-ons. The Modal Analysis add-on is a prerequisite for all other dynamic add-ons, since it performs the natural vibration analysis for member, surface, and solid models.
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).
The AISC 360-16 steel standard requires stability consideration for a structure as a whole and each of its elements. Various methods for this are available, including direct consideration in the analysis, the effective length method, and the direct analysis method. This article will highlight the important requirements from Ch. C and the direct analysis method to be incorporated in a structural steel model along with the application in RFEM 6.
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.
You can use the selection options in the printout report to receive the detail results (in short or long form) to illustrate the individual buckling modes with the relevant buckling analysis.
An FE mesh quality display is available in RFEM as a tool for structural analyses of two-dimensional components. It leads to the execution of an internal check of the generated finite elements for defined criteria.
The RF-STABILITY add-on module determines any critical load factors, effective lengths, and eigenvectors of RFEM models. Stability analyses can be carried out by various eigenvalue methods, the advantages of which depend on the structural system as well as computer configurations.
The SHAPE‑THIN and SHAPE‑MASSIVE cross-section programs are suitable for determining the cross-section properties of common thin-walled or thick-walled sections. These cross-section properties are also available for further analyses in RSTAB and RFEM.
In EN 1993-1-1, the General Method was introduced as a design format for stability analyses that can be applied to planar systems with arbitrary boundary conditions and variable structural height. The design checks can be performed for loading in the main load-bearing plane and simultaneous compression. The stability cases of lateral-torsional buckling and flexural buckling are analyzed from the main supporting plane; that is, about the weak component axis. Therefore, the issue often arises as to how to design, in this context, flexural buckling in the main load-bearing plane.
In RFEM, orthotropic plastic analyses using the Tsai‑Wu plasticity criterion have been possible for quite some time now. The hardening modulus Ep,x or Ep,y can be used to consider the hardening of the material during the iterative calculation.
The classification of cross-sections according to EN 1993-1-1 using Table 5.2 is a simple method for designing the local buckling of cross-section parts. For cross-sections of cross-section class 4, it is then necessary to determine the effective cross-section properties according to EN 1993-1-5 in order to consider the influence of local buckling in the ultimate limit state designs.
The RF-CONCRETE Members and CONCRETE add-on modules provide the option for "Dimensioning of Longitudinal Reinforcement for Serviceability Limit State". You can select the design criteria for the calculation of the longitudinal reinforcement.
This technical article deals with the design of structural components and cross-sections of a welded truss girder in the ultimate limit state. Furthermore, the deformation analysis in the serviceability limit state is described.
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.
The elastic deformations of a structural component due to a load are based on Hooke's law, which describes a linear stress-strain relation. They are reversible: After the relief, the component returns to its original shape. However, plastic deformations lead to irreversible deformations. The plastic strains are usually considerably larger than the elastic deformations. For plastic stresses of ductile materials such as steel, yielding effects occur where the increase in deformation is accompanied by hardening. They lead to permanent deformations - and in extreme cases to the destruction of the structural component.
With the RF-STABILITY and RSBUCK add-on modules for RFEM and RSTAB, it is possible to perform eigenvalue analyses for member structures in order to determine the effective length factors. The effective length coefficients can then be used for the stability design.
In order to consider inaccuracies regarding the position of masses in a response spectrum analysis, standards for seismic design specify rules that have to be applied in both the simplified and multi-modal response spectrum analyses. These rules describe the following general procedure: The story mass must be shifted by a certain eccentricity, which results in a torsional moment.
When introducing and transferring horizontal loads such as wind or seismic loads, increasing difficulties arise in 3D models. To avoid such issues, some standards (for example, ASCE 7, NBC) require the simplification of the model using diaphragms that distribute the horizontal loads to structural components transferring loads, but cannot transfer bending themselves (called "Diaphragm").
The input windows in RF-/STEEL EC3 distinguish between the flexural and lateral-torsional buckling analyses. In the following text, an example will show the parameters for lateral-torsional buckling.
Different methods are available for calculating the deformation in the cracked state. RFEM provides an analytical method according to DIN EN 1992-1-1 7.4.3 and a physical-nonlinear analysis. Both methods have different features and can be more or less suitable depending on the circumstances. This article will give an overview of the two calculation methods.
With RF-FOUNDATION Pro, it is possible to determine the settlements of single foundations and resulting spring stiffnesses of the nodal supports. These spring stiffnesses can be exported into the RFEM model and used for further analyses.