Inventor 2011 Content Center Structural Steel Profiles

[jdanne]

Can someone please tell me how the dimensions were derived for the structural steel section profiles?

Specifically I am looking at C5x9 channel, and from the content center you can choose Structural Shapes->Channels->ANSI MC/C or Structural Shapes->Channels->ANSI/AISC (Rolled Steel C). If you go into each of these and select "C 5x9", you will get two different profiles, where the profile selected through "ANSI MC/C" calculates to 9.01 lb/ft (complies with ASTM A6), and the profile selected through "ANSI/AISC (Rolled Steel C)" calculates to 9.6 lb/ft (does not comply with ASTM A6). While the height, flange length, and web thickness correspond to the values in ASTM A6, the distance from the outer face of the flange to the web toe of the fillet on both profiles does not match the values for kdes or kdet in the AISC Shapes Database v13.2.

Is this an error or is there some reason why there are two different profiles for the same thing and why neither comply with the standards?

[pauldoubet]

The profiles for the MC Channels are incorrect. The leg angle is the same as a regular C shape. If you want them corrected you will probably have to do so yourself. I have reported this to Autodesk and spoke with them several times about this. It is still not fixed. I have fixed them in my custom Content Center.

Paul

[swalton]

Some of the large W-beams have incorrect fillets as well. 

I check everything. 

[jdanne]

Really? Autodesk doesn't care that the Content Center contains bad data?

[pauldoubet]

I think it is just not very high on the priority list of things that need fixed. And in response to the previous post regarding the fillets, the fillets or radi are no longer specified in the standards. I thoroughly researched this and the standards clearly state that. The standards now require the shapes to meet minimum strength requirements but no longer call out any specific fillet radius.

And actually if I recall the CC module is one that Autodesk purchased which might explain there low priority on fixing issues like this.

Paul

[swalton]

I don't mind the w-beam fillet being off by a 1/16 or so,  I placed a W18 x 119 beam that had a fillet 0f .0001". 

I'm not sure that meets the strength standard.

[jdanne]

Whether they developed it from scratch or purchased it, it is theirs now, and after this many years with so many users reporting errors, I am surprised that even basic structural profiles are still incorrect.

[pauldoubet]

Yes I am aware of some exaggerated errors and the way fillets are calculated in some shapes. Bottom line is they need to be as accurate as possible to allow for real world results such as notches, copes, etc. I suggest if you are on subscription you file a support request directly with Autodesk. If they get enough complaints they will probably fix it.

Paul

[jdanne]

I filed one yesterday, no response yet.

[jeanchile]

---

@jdanne wrote:

... does not match the values for kdes or kdet in the AISC Shapes Database v13.2.

---

Do you have this in Excel format as well? I think you may be able to download this from their website for free. Using that file you can copy and paste information into your own custom CC library. It should only take a day or so to set up the shapes you need and get your own CC. The only tricky part I can think of would be the fillet radius because as you may  know the "k" dimension and the "k1" dimension do not always come out to a proper arc (especially if you are using the "kdet" parameter).

Using suggestions from Paul I was able to get my own CC up and running in a couple of days using what IV already had. Noticing a few errors like the one you mention has prompted me to put "create my own AISC content center" on my "to do" list. I've only thought about it over the last few weeks (I haven't actually done anything about it yet). Maybe if I get some time in the next little while I'll try and tackle this, then I can send it over. The tough part for me is going to be making sure that it works with the frame analysis tool (which I am using all the time now).

If you need to be an AISC member to get the Excel file and you are not, I am, so send me an email and I'll jet it over to you (rmdetail_at_qwest_dot_com).

And look for Paul's responses to posts on setting up a custom CC. He's the smart one around here about that sort of thing. Good luck.

[jdanne]

Thanks, and I do have the excel file, which is available on their website for free. Actually for kdes and kdet on the channel I am referring to, they are equal, which in practice, we all know is not true.

Since the existance of the CC is a selling point, it is ridiculous that users have to individually create their own CC's.

[jeanchile]

---

@jdanne wrote:

Since the existance of the CC is a selling point, it is ridiculous that users have to individually create their own CC's.

---

I don't disagree with this statement one bit. But hey, at least we'll get a bunch of new stuff (that probably isn't finished either) with 2012 .

That being said, it wasn't that difficult to customize my CC the first time around. Which is exactly why I suspect we'll be left to doing it ourselves from here on out. I think I am going to start a list of unfinished IV items, assign a dollar value to my time for fixing them (or devising a work around) and then request a credit from my reseller... do you think that will work?