Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
Dear Luciano,
thanks for your appreciation.
NextFEMpy was developed to allowing everyone to use NextFEM Designer without loading all the libraries, but through the REST API server (included in NextFEM Designer plugins).
A sample code for VIKTOR platform is already available in our GitHub page, we’ll show the usage also with VIKTOR asap.NextFEMpy was designed to be compatible with all the previous API used with pythonnet. There’s no need to convert old code for more perfomance, it should be the same with both approaches.
Also NextFEM Server could be used with the same approach; we’ll provide samples.
Hello,
thanks for your suggestion; if you tried with our scripting engine to compile a script for the so-called “sandwich” model for shell design, let us know and we’ll try to improve/implement it.
Btw, we considered to implement this in the past, but by now there’s no request from our paid customer for this, hence we suspended the development. Instead, we implemented the shear check for slabs into Concrete module.Hello,
CatenaryCableElement is already supported for model import and export. Actually, some distributed loads could not be applied to the element, but lumped to equivalent nodal loads. You can test it with version 2.3.EDIT: I forgot to mention: to set a truss as a cable, in Element Properties set CableNL to 1.
As told, the program does not have internal automatic meshing. Hence, I simply mean breaking the beam in 2 pieces. Please note that this is required only for single beam model, general structures always have internal (not bounded) nodes.
The important thing to do is to have a model with at least an internal node, otherwise the solver tries, as said, to compensate the residuals (especially for rotations) on end nodes.
Dear Alain,
the beam formulation for built-in solver does not account for automatic mesher or p-delta effects correction for a single beam element.
As a result, for p-delta and second-order effects, you have to consider more than one element for a model. Fortunately, all the model having internal nodes (e.g. structures) does not suffer from this.
Considering the single-beam model, the moment at middle-span for LC1 is the same for all loadcases, but translated of the initial/ending moment (e.g. 34.186 – 7.629 = 26.55). The unrealistic initial and ending moment is due to the fact that the iterative solver cannot compensate the residual in internal nodes.Dear Luciano,
you obtain “bad” diagram because you don’t have aligned shell local axes. Every force/moment for shells is plotted against local axes for NextFEM Designer.
We currently read the mesh given by Gmsh (not via API, but from GUI only).To solve the problem, align the local axes with Assign / Local axes command.
ps.
we have free internal tria mesher. For regular slab as yours, a structured mesh (made by division) is more suitable. By using a mesh like the one you have, you’re implicitly introducing approximations in results, because finite elements involved (quad) are made to be more accurate when regular (e.g. square).