Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi, can you send it in this format?
https://github.com/NextFEM/Scripting/blob/main/WoodArmer-elements.nvvDear Luciano,
thank you for the Python script, it has been published here: https://github.com/NextFEM/NextFEMpy/tree/main/samples
best regardsHello,
that’s exactly what I told in my previous reply – you have to assign a planar section (thickness) to shell in order to proceed with analysis. You can find it in Edit / Sections mask.Hello,
sure you can – in Rhino, the hull has to be a simple mesh to be imported correctly via NextFEM-Grasshopper plugin.
Then you can assign thickness from Sections mask, or do a simple parametric design with a few python lines.in Control Panel, open International Settings. In Administration options mask and Non-Unicode program language, click Change system locale setting… and set the language to English.This should not be required anymore since version 2.5.0.3.
Hello,
yes, in Control Panel, open International Settings. In Administration options mask and Non-Unicode program language, click Change system locale setting… and set the language to English.
Then restart the program.Version 2.3 was accounting a reduction factor by means of Eurocode 2 on quasi-permanent combos, which is not actually considered in NTC. Our internal rules prevent us to act on past versions (v2.3 does not receive updates since the end of June), however we understand your needs and we decided, exceptionally, to release a small update for your version. Please check for minor updates from inside the program.
Thanks, we checked element 623 in v2.4 and we confirm there’s no issue. Compared with v.2.3, the current version has been revised for SLS verifications, both for Eurocode and Italian codes.
As a workaround, you could run the checking set “NTC_CA” included for SLS combinations.Hello,
the section which is mostly compressed is the one with the worse rebarDiameterRatio maybe due to the composite bending you have in the bottom pic (hence corner bar is more stressed).
Could you share the model by uploding it at the bottom of Support page?Hello,
checking speed for RC structures in actual version 2.4 has been improved.
However, if you’re still using 2.3 you could use some strategies to speed-up the process:
– use less stations: if you don’t have trapezoidal distributed loads on beam, in most cases it’s safe to adopt 3 stations instead of 5
– the option “Save results in NXF file” does not affect checking speed
– proceed by combinations groups or by element groups: for caching reasons, in v2.3 you’re advised to proceed by groups of elements or combinations (ULS, ELS, and so on) since checking results are cumulated into model.Dear Luciano,
we’re still working on nextfempy module, the last calls have been added today. Please update to nextfempy 0.1.3.thanks
Static rebar design does not perform design on slabs. Checking should work: maybe you’re requesting checks on combinations (default optionin Verifications mask), but you don’t have combos in the model. Select “ALL” for load case.
Hello,
for the first issue, the “Wall__” identifier is needed to assign rebar to a slab or a wall, hence the group cannot be renamed. I needed, you can create another group with a more frindly name.For the error in checking, you’re using a deprecated script. In your version there’s no need to call the Wood-Armer moments scripts, since from ver. 2.1 the Wood-Armer moments are available directly in view (see Area forces, mm**WA* components) and in tables (see Extract data mask, Area Forces).
If you need to use then in checking, try calling directly the following quantities. Use this as a script in Verifications mask:
@_mxWAbot mmaxX @_myWAbot mmaxY @_mxWAtop mminX @_myWAtop mminYEDIT: actual version 2.4 supports also shear checking in slabs.