Lateral-Torsional Buckling (LTB) is a phenomenon that occurs when a beam or structural member is subjected to bending and the compression flange is not sufficiently supported laterally. This leads to a combination of lateral displacement and twisting. It is a critical consideration in the design of structural elements, especially in slender beams and girders.
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.
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.
This article will show you how to use the Combination Wizard in RFEM 6 to reduce the number of load combinations to be analyzed, thus reducing the calculation effort and increasing the calculation efficiency.
This article will show you how to use the Torsion Warping (7 DOF) add-on in combination with the Structure Stability add-on to consider cross-section warping as an additional degree of freedom when performing the stability analysis.
This technical article presents some basics for using the Torsional Warping add-on (7 DOF). It is fully integrated into the main program and allows you to consider the cross-section warping when calculating member elements. In combination with the Stability Analysis and Steel Design add-ons, it is possible to perform the lateral-torsional buckling design with internal forces according to the second-order analysis, taking imperfections into account.
RFEM and RSTAB can calculate the critical load factor for each load case (LC) and each load combination (CO) in the case of a geometrically nonlinear calculation (second-order analysis and following).
In RF-/FOUNDATION Pro, the foundation design requires the definition of the corresponding loading (load cases, load combinations, or result combinations) for different design situations (STR, GEO, UPL, or EQU).
The dialog box for editing load or result combinations is a non-modal dialog box. This means that after you open this dialog box, you can edit the combinations outside the dialog box as well. For manually defining or editing a combination, a separate dialog box can be opened parallel to the "Edit load cases and combinations" dialog box.
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.
By means of result combinations, it is possible to create, among other things, the envelopes for internal forces and deformations. Thus, you can quickly find the maxima and minima for the subsequent design.
The automatic creation of combinations in RFEM and RSTAB with the "EN 1990 + EN 1991‑3; Cranes" option allows you to design crane runway beams as well as support loads on the rest of the structure.
For automatic load case combination in RFEM and RSTAB, you have to enter the possible interaction of load cases. In addition to the simultaneous or alternative occurrence of all load cases of an action, an option for different combination conditions is possible.
When calculating foundations according to EC 7 or EC 2, different foundation types or sizes are usually used in one object. However, boundary conditions like the soil parameters, the materials for foundations, concrete covers, and the load combinations selected for design remain the same for all foundations, as a rule.
In the case of horizontal beam-like supporting structures, the favorable and unfavorable load components of the permanent actions should be considered separately. In RFEM and RSTAB, you can do this as follows.
The most common causes of unstable models are failing member nonlinearities such as tension members. As the simplest example, there is a frame with supports on the column footing and moment hinges on the column head. This unstable system is stabilized by a cross bracing of tension members. In the case of load combinations with horizontal loads, the system remains stable. However, if it is loaded vertically, both tension members fail and the system becomes unstable, which causes a calculation error. You can avoid such an error by selecting the exceptional handling of failing members under "Calculate" → "Calculation Parameters" → "Global Calculation Parameters".
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, you can modify stiffnesses for materials, cross-sections, members, load cases, and load combinations in many places. There are two options in RF‑DYNAM Pro for considering these modifications when determining the natural frequencies.
To carry out a structural analysis for a structural system according to the current standards, it is necessary not only to deal with the actions and resistances of structural components, but also with the combinations of these actions. Some of the most common actions in structural analysis are, for example, the permanently acting load case of self‑weight and the suddenly acting load cases of wind and snow.
To carry out a structural analysis for a structural system according to the current standards, it is necessary not only to deal with the actions and resistances of structural components, but also with the combinations of these actions. Some of the most common actions in structural analysis are, for example, the permanently acting load case of self‑weight and the suddenly acting load cases of wind and snow.
To carry out a structural analysis for a structural system according to the current standards, it is necessary not only to deal with the actions and resistances of structural components, but also with the combinations of these actions. The best-known actions in structural analysis are, for example, the permanently acting load case of self-weight and the suddenly acting load cases of wind and snow.
The description of load cases, load combinations, or result combinations is often longer than fits into the drop‑down combo box "Current Load Case, Load Combination, Result Combination or Module Case" in the toolbar of RFEM or RSTAB.
RF-MOVE Surfaces facilitates the generation of load cases from different positions of moving loads. Based on the load positions of the moving load, the program generates separate load cases for RFEM 5. Optionally, an enveloping result combination of all load positions is created.
In addition to the basic combination rules of EN 1990, there are other combination conditions for actions on road bridges specified in EN 1991‑2 that must be taken into account. RFEM and RSTAB provide automatic combinatorics that can be activated in the General Data when selecting the standard EN 1990 + EN 1991‑2. The partial safety factors and combination coefficients depending on the action category are preset when selecting the respective National Annex.
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.