Hi to everyone....
...I'm trying to apply a planar load on a cladding's local Z direction using the „Uniform planar load on contour“ command. Unfortunately the software makes no difference between global and local coordinate system, basically the direction of the applied load is always according the global Z axis....See the attached screenshot!
Is there a real software problem or am I doing something wrong?
Any comments would be highly appreciated!
Regards!
Rafael Medeiros
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
Thank you! That's what I did,......hope someone of the RSA stuff will notice this thread and fix the bug!
Regards!
The load should be applied correctly and there is no need to divide a panel into parts. Mind that for such load type you should use another type of load display as shown on the attached picture. Make sure that you run model generation or calculate the file before displaying the loads. To check if the load is correctly applied verify the sum of the reactions – you should have horizontal reactions in addition to the vertical ones. I hope this clarifies this issue.
Regards,
Rafael Medeiros
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
@Rafacascudo wrote:
It would be great if the load could be displayed right without having to generate the model.
Due to the nature of this load this is not possible. At the stage you define the load the direction of the local Z axes of a panel is 'not known' yet. Only during the model generation this is 'checked' and the 'correct' direction of the load is determined. I think that we can agree that performing such check each time you define this kind of load may not be the functionality you would like to see especially for larger models, however I agree that this would be nice.
Regards,
Rafael Medeiros
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
@Rafacascudo wrote:
This " 'not known' yet " ,what does it mean? , cause as soon as you create a panel, the local axes are available and are displayed if you want to ,without generating the model.Couldn´t the load also be " correctly" displayed according to this " premature" local system?
This is not that simple. To display the load correctly the analysis of the panel geometry and detection of surface elements to which the load should be applied is required. This is what I refer to as the model generation. If you look at the attached picture you can see that the direction of the panel is a 'simplified' term which in fact should be replaced by the detection of local directions of each of surface elements being 'within' the load contour and this should be done for number of panels rather then a single one as the load contour can be defined 'outside' the model and projected in various directions.
Hi Dear users of ARSA,
I am doing actually analysis on an existing continuous bridge truss, the challenge is consisting by replaced the existing deck by a new one wich will be post-tensioned. Doing it with ARSA would be grateful, by taking account of the possibility to models the built-up section of the different members by ourselves, and by the using of the inelegance line tool, but if we want to taking account of the lateral variation of the truck load, for the different lanes (4 in my case), we have to create 3 mobile axes in each lane load. The notion of lane load is prescribe by the AAHASTO LARD, and the CHBDC SO-06 even by the new EUROCODE.
Unfortunately the bridge Autoloader was discontinuous for the resents versions of Robot without any explanation of the technical team of ARSA, in my case I have to do the modeling in SAP 14.02 which taking account of the design and analysis parameters for multiple lanes in bridge structures.
If anyone could help me about this topic that will be grateful.
See the doc in attachment that I have sent to the Robot Staff since more than one year without receiving any answer.
You shouldn't have any issue with this - try to zip the files. Alternatively please check:
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/robot-structural-analysis-forum/sending-bigger-files/td-p/3795062
@Anonymous wrote:
Hi. A bout this two problems with planar loads on contour. I made the follow test: - 3 same structures - on the left: two uniform planar loads on contour, in local coordinate system: wrong picture, wrong result - in the middle: one uniform planar load, in local coordinate system: right picture, right result - on the right: one planar loads (3 points), in local coordinate system: wrong picture, right result Five years later the begining of this topic, does Autodesk find a real solution to this big and "basic" problem according to a design software???
"wrong picture"
The display of a defined load may not be intuitive however it is as designed and don on purpose. The contour limiting the area of the load can be defined not only in a plane of a panel but as separated from the model whereas the load can be applied to many panels at the same time (imagine a 30 story building so you can define this load one time rather than 30 times). To add additional flavor the surfaces you apply this loads to can be of entirely different orientation and the diction of load projection can be in the arbitrary direction too. This makes this load type very versatile but backfires when you actually want to see the load on the objects you applied them to the moment you have defined it as its exact 'form' is unknown at this stage yet. As the final loads can look differently for each of the object they are applied to they are shown as automatically generated loads after running the model generation.
"on the left: two uniform planar loads on contour, in local coordinate system: wrong result"
The bars the load is 'assigned' to are discretized with certain accuracy and the length of each of the contour does't match exactly with this discretization. The result is that the tributary area length assigned to each bars is slightly longer than the halves of their lengths. This results in the value of the actual load being slightly smaller than for two other models and as these loads overlap in the middle of the panel the bending moments are slightly higher whereas the reactions are the same.. This can be avoided when you e.g. define a node at the middle of a bar.
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.
Unfortunately, I am not able to see the load, perpendicular to the plan after running the FEA. Is there something I am doing wrong?
Is there a way to display the original load perpendicular to the cladding (10kN/m2)?
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.