In Eurocodes 1993-1-8 says that for joints outside range of validity given in Table 7.8, should secondary moments in the joints caused by their rotational stiffness should be taken into account..
So If you modeling your truss like continous chords and pinned diagonals/posts you don't have that moment in your joint calculations, so I ask should there be some kinda warning for that?
And in 7.1.2.(2) says that compressions elements of members should be class 1 or 2, Robot don't give any warning of that condition too..
Am I missing something or should there be a warning for that?
See attachment..
Solved! Go to Solution.
Solved by Artur.Kosakowski. Go to Solution.
For the section class warning: I agree that it should be displayed and I have sent this request to our development team.
If you find your post answered press the Accept as Solution button please. This will help other users to find solutions much faster. Thank you.
True, it divide moments caused by Eccentricity but in my opinion Robot dont take a count "secondary moments"
See attacment pics 🙂
Let me write this again so that I'm sure I understand your request correctly.
Scenario 1:
A user defines truss with pinned connections among bars (no bending moments calculated during static analysis).
5.1.5(3) not satisfied
Robot gives warning about the secondary moments not being taken into account during the verification of a connection
Scenario 2:
A user defines truss with elastic releases of fixed connections among bars (bending moments calculated during static analysis).
5.1.5(3) not satisfied
No warning displayed during the verification of a connection
BTW: what is the source of the table that is located at the top of the picture you attached?
If you find your post answered press the Accept as Solution button please. This will help other users to find solutions much faster. Thank you.
source: EN 1993-1-8:2005
And I correct myself, it's not table 5.1.5(3) , Its table 7.20 see attacment..
Don't know which one is better, warning always or warning only when modeled as a pin connection.. that flexible is difficult to take account and there is not many listed values or formulas to calculate that C-value (kNm/rad value) of joint because so many things affects on it.
Don't know which one is better, warning always or warning only when modeled as a pin connection..
In the situation when bending moments calculated based on stiffness of elements are considered in the verification of a connection display of the warning that the secondary moments are not taken into account would be IMHO sort of strange. I think that it may be assumed that a structural engineer deciding on using fully fixed or partially released connection among bars of the model already decided on the 'stiffness' of the connection
True 🙂 and that situation would be also frustrating, if you think that you know what you are doing 🙂