can you please check what is wrong with this design . i read and changed the design according to the rules but the same error messages are coming.
↧
RE: error message comes. "IS BADLY SHAPED, WARPED, NOT CONVEX OR NOT NUMBERED COUNTER CLOCKWISE". What can i do to solve this?
↧
RE: error message comes. "IS BADLY SHAPED, WARPED, NOT CONVEX OR NOT NUMBERED COUNTER CLOCKWISE". What can i do to solve this?
Hi,
I have quickly gone through your model and found that there are several plates which are essentially linear elements with zero adjacent dimension. This may happen because of duplicate nodes and I found them as well. You can simply delete these additional entities using the tools mentioned below:
For warped plates using options lies in Menu Bar > Tools > Check for Warped Plates > Select a Plate from dialog box > Select Highlight button > Delete if necessary.
For duplicate nodes, you can use Menu Bar > Tools > Check for Duplicate > Nodes > Highlight / Merge Nodes.
Additionally you may also consider the option to mesh your plates for a uniform mesh and renumbering them.
The above changes applied and the model is attached for your reference.
(Please visit the site to view this file)
↧
↧
RE: error message comes. "IS BADLY SHAPED, WARPED, NOT CONVEX OR NOT NUMBERED COUNTER CLOCKWISE". What can i do to solve this?
Thank you very much Mr Kush.
↧
error message comes. "IS BADLY SHAPED, WARPED, NOT CONVEX OR NOT NUMBERED COUNTER CLOCKWISE". What can i do to solve this?
i was designing a water tank and after analyzing the design this error message comes. "IS BADLY SHAPED, WARPED, NOT CONVEX OR NOT NUMBERED COUNTER CLOCKWISE". What can i do to solve this?
↧
RE: Truss member of STAAD and the instability problems
Here is a good forum discussion which should answer your questions: communities.bentley.com/.../402238
↧
↧
RE: Flange & web bolted splice connection
I agree that these would be nice improvements. I will pass these suggestions to the development team.
↧
RE: The difference from Text book and Staad Pro in . Would you give some advice.
I was checking the model with 3200 plates mesh only, as the most accurate results will be in the most dense mesh. I see that in this STAAD.Pro model you are using default material properties for concrete: E as 21.718 kN/mm2, Poission's ratio as 0.17. However, in the Excel spreadsheet you are using E as 20.58 kN/mm2, Poission's ratio as 0.3. Please modify these material properties in your STAAD.Pro model and the analysis results will be closer to manual calculations.
↧
The difference from Text book and Staad Pro in . Would you give some advice.
Dear Members,
With reference to the above subject, would you please review my problem as described as followings:
We are trying to check the difference between the text book and Staad pro (expectation is similar result), however, we got the too much different value in this case (kindly refer to excel file in "Compare" sheet). We are do not know what is the reason.
Would you please review our Exel file for Text book checking; and Staad pro file for 4 cases modeling.
Please kindly download from below link: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/ah16vnh62luwn/Staad_pro
Thank you very much for your kind help and support.
↧
RE: Flange & web bolted splice connection
Just for the record - these suggestions were reported as enhancements 683081 and 683083.
↧
↧
RE: Flange & web bolted splice connection
Modestas, is there anyway us users can see enhancement request and known bugs? You used to have a knowledge base that we could enter TR numbers from our service request into and check the status. It seems like you could also do a word search. That has disappeared.
↧
RE: about rcc design
You may use a procedure explained by Mr. Amitava in this forum discussion: communities.bentley.com/.../371071
↧
about rcc design
If expansion joint exist in building then how to model the rcc structure??
↧
RE: Truss member of STAAD and the instability problems
Hi Modestas,
Thanks a lot for your help. That helps me to understand how to remove the instabilities. So in this situation, is it better to use TRUSS member or use beam members with moments released? I mean, for bolted connections that are not designed to transfer moments.
Thanks again,
Fiona
Thanks a lot for your help. That helps me to understand how to remove the instabilities. So in this situation, is it better to use TRUSS member or use beam members with moments released? I mean, for bolted connections that are not designed to transfer moments.
Thanks again,
Fiona
↧
↧
RE: Truss member of STAAD and the instability problems
Hi Modestas,
I tried to release only MY and MZ, but the displacement is still very large, like 200 meters. Guess my question is that, is it reasonable to release the moments at the pinned connections since the beams are continuous anyway?
Thanks,
Fiona
I tried to release only MY and MZ, but the displacement is still very large, like 200 meters. Guess my question is that, is it reasonable to release the moments at the pinned connections since the beams are continuous anyway?
Thanks,
Fiona
↧
RE: Truss member of STAAD and the instability problems
Fiona: There are a couple of nodes at the intersection of the long braces which should be merged. From what you described, it would be more appropriate to release the moments at the ends of the long braces rather than specifying these as TRUSSes. The member is continuous at the intersection and so you should not apply moment releases there. Also with TRUSS specification you would end up with instabilities at the intersection. I would also avoid using MX member releases. A modified file is attached for your reference.
(Please visit the site to view this file)
↧
RE: rcc design error
The lower columns in your model does seem to have higher compression than upper columns but the moments are higher in the upper columns. For example for your load combination 3, if you look at the My and Mz moment values for members 8 and 34, you will see that the values for the later are much higher. As column design depends on interaction of axial+biaxial bending, higher reinforcements may be required at columns with higher moments and lesser axial compression compared to ones with higher axial compression and lesser moments.
↧
rcc design error
When I am Designing this building by interactive design in the result I have found that for a column subjected to load and moment which is lower than the column below more reinforcement is being used for the upper column with lower load and moment.Can anyone please tell me why this is happening?
Staad file: [View:/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/FIRE-BDG.std:940:0]
↧
↧
Anchor Reinforcement in RAM Connection
Could someone clarify for me how the axes are defined in the Connection Pad parameters for anchor shear reinforcing? RAM Connection allows inputting the number of shear bars in the major axis and minor axis directions. Are these axes defined consistently when using RAM Connection Standalone and RAM Connection inside of RSS or RAM Elements? Are they defined based on column strong/weak axis or baseplate longitudinal/transverse dimension or something else? I've just gotten some seemingly inconsistent results, where changing the number of shear bars in the anticipated axis didn't affect my calcs for anchor reinforcement in shear, but changing the number in the other axis did. It didn't seem to jive with what ACI labels as bars being effective for anchor reinforcement in Figure R17.5.2.9b in ACI 318-14 (D6.2.9 in the older ACI code). But maybe that was because of different column orientation or something changing what RAM considered the effective axis from one baseplate connection to the other. Any help is much appreciated. Thanks!
↧
RE: Truss member of STAAD and the instability problems
Hi Sye,
Thanks for your help.
Fiona
Thanks for your help.
Fiona
↧
RE: STAAD.Pro RC Designer Units
From within RC Designer, if you go to the top menu and choose View > Options you will see tabs to change the Structure/Section/Force Units.
↧