In this article, a lap joint of a ZL purlin on a monopitch roof is modeled and designed using the Steel Joints add-on, and compared with the load-bearing capacity table of the manufacturer.
Steel has poor thermal properties in terms of fire resistance. The thermal expansion for increasing temperature is very high compared to that of other building materials, and might result in effects that were not present in the design at normal temperature due to restraint in the component. As temperature increases, steel ductility increases, whereas its strength decreases. Since steel loses 50% of its strength at temperature of 600 °C, it is important to protect components against fire effects. In the case of protected steel components, the fire resistance duration can be increased due to the improved heating behavior.
The RF-/LIMITS add-on module allows you to compare the ultimate limit state of members, member ends, nodes, nodal supports, and surfaces (RFEM only) by means of a defined ultimate load capacity. Furthermore, you can check nodal displacements and cross-section dimensions. In this example, the column bases of a carport are to be compared with the maximum allowable forces specified by the manufacturer.
In the case of open cross-sections, the torsional load is removed mainly via secondary torsion, since the St. Venant torsional stiffness is low compared to the warping stiffness. Therefore, warping stiffeners in the cross-section are particularly interesting for the lateral-torsional buckling analysis, as they can significantly reduce the rotation. For this, end plates or welded stiffeners and sections are suitable.
Utilizing the RF-STEEL AISC add-on module, steel member design is possible according to the AISC 360-16 standard. The following article will compare the results between calculating lateral torsional buckling according to Chapter F and Eigenvalue Analysis.
In this article, representations of a blast scenario of a remote detonation performed in RF-DYNAM Pro - Forced Vibrations are shown, and the effects are compared in the linear time history analysis.
Eurocode 2 provides two ways to perform a crack width design. On one hand, the crack width design according to 7.3.3 can be performed without direct calculation by means of tables for the limitation of the member spacing and diameter. On the other hand, the crack width wk can be determined directly according to 7.3.4 and compared to a limit value.
The following study compares the wind pressure on a tall building obtained by RWIND Simulation with the results published by Dagnew et al. at the 11th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering in June, 2009. In this paper, the Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Council (CAARC) building is used as a model, and the results of several different numerical methods are compared with experimental data obtained from wind tunnels.
When performing control calculations and comparing the internal forces and the resulting required reinforcement of downstand beams, large differences can occur. Although the same load assumptions and spans are applied, some programs or the manual calculation display very different internal forces compared to the FEA model. The differences already occur in the case of the centric member and without considering the internal forces' components from the possible effective slab widths.
The critical factor for lateral-torsional buckling or the critical buckling moment of a single-span beam will be compared according to different stability analysis methods.
The American Wood Council (AWC) has released the 2018 Edition of the National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction. This is the second edition of the NDS to contain a chapter dedicated to cross-laminated timber (CLT) design. Therefore, a couple of revisions were included in the 2018 NDS when compared to the previous 2015 Edition.
There are several options for calculating a semi-rigid composite beam. They differ primarily in the type of modeling. Whereas the Gamma method ensures simple modeling, additional efforts are required when using other methods (for example, shear analogy) for the modeling which are, however, offset by the much more flexible application compared to the Gamma method.
In practice, an engineer often faces the task of representing the support conditions as close to the reality as possible in order to be able to analyze the deformations and internal forces of the structure subjected to their influence and to enable construction that is as cost efficient as possible. RFEM and RSTAB provide numerous options for defining nonlinear nodal supports. This second part describes the options for creating a nonlinear support for a restraint and provides a simple example. For a better understanding, the result is always compared to a linearly defined support.
RFEM offers the following options to design a pinned end plate connection. First, there is the option in RF-JOINTS Steel - Pinned to enter the corresponding parameters quickly and easily to receive a documented analysis, including graphics. It is also possible to model such a connection individually in RFEM and then to evaluate or manually design the results. In the following example, the particularities of this modeling will be explained and the shear forces of the bolts will be compared to the corresponding results from RF-JOINTS Steel - Pinned.
RFEM and RSTAB provide numerous options for nonlinear definitions of nodal supports. With regard to an earlier article, further possibilities of the nonlinear support design for a movable support are shown in a simple example in this article. For a better understanding, the result is always compared to a linearly defined support.
In practice, an engineer often faces the task of representing the support conditions as close to the reality as possible in order to be able to analyze the deformations and internal forces of the structure subjected to their influence, and to enable construction that is as cost-effective as possible. RFEM and RSTAB provide numerous options for defining nonlinear nodal supports. The first section of my article describes the options for creating a nonlinear free support and provides a simple example. For a better understanding, the result is always compared to a linearly defined support.
My previous article Result Combinations 1 explained the basic principles of result combinations on simple examples. This article describes a further application case that combines the definition options of Examples 1 and 2. Likewise, the effort should be compared to a combination by means of load combinations.
SHAPE‑THIN cross‑section properties software determines the effective section properties of thin‑walled cross‑sections according to Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 9. Alternatively, the program allows plastic design of general cross‑sections according to the Simplex Method. In this process, plastic cross-section reserves are iteratively calculated for elastically determined internal forces. The following example describes the effective cross-section properties in the notching area of a rolled I-section. Afterwards, the results are compared with the plastic analysis.
The vibration design of cross‑laminated timber plates often governs for wide-span ceilings. The advantage of timber as a lighter material compared to concrete is turned into a disadvantage here, since a high mass is advantageous for a low natural frequency.
The following article describes the design of a single-span beam subjected to bending and compression, which is performed according to EN 1993‑1‑1 in the RF-/STEEL EC3 add-on module. Since the beam is modeled with a tapered cross-section and thus it is not a uniform structural component, the design must be performed either according to General Method in compliance with Sect. 6.3.4 of EN 1993‑1‑1, or according to the second-order analysis. Both options will be explained and compared, and for the calculation according to the second-order analysis, there is an additional design format using Partial Internal Forces Method (PIFM) available. Therefore, the design is divided into three steps: design according to Sect. 6.3.4 of EN 1993‑1‑1 (General Method), design according to the second‑order analysis, elastic (warping torsion analysis), design according to the second‑order analysis, plastic (warping torsion analysis and Partial Internal Forces Method).
In RFEM and RSTAB, several interfaces are available. The DSTV interface (*.stp) is the most convenient for importing beam structures, since supports, hinges, loads, and load combinations are also transferred, in addition to the general topology.
The modal results of a response spectrum analysis are combined with quadratic combination rules, and in RF‑/DYNAM Pro, the SRSS and the CQC rules are available. The default setting modifies the quadratic expressions into equivalent linear combinations. The advantage of this option is that the corresponding internal forces keep their signs and are often much smaller, compared to the standard SRSS or CQC rules. The standard SRSS and CQC rules are on the conservative side and the "equivalent linear combinations" are recommended.