Robot Structural Analysis Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Robot Structural Analysis Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Robot Structural Analysis topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Does Robot comply with the EC8 5.4.3.2.1(3)P or the DM14/01/2008 7.4.4.2.2.1 ?

18 REPLIES 18
Reply
Message 1 of 19
GabrieleNovembri1027
755 Views, 18 Replies

Does Robot comply with the EC8 5.4.3.2.1(3)P or the DM14/01/2008 7.4.4.2.2.1 ?

Hi All,

 

I cannot understand if Robot respects the limits of the normal stress provided by the DM 14/01/2008 #7.4.4.2.2.1 or EC8   5.4.3.2.1(3)P.

For the section in the picture, taking into account only the concrete, NSD should be <= 0.65 Nrd (CDB) or NSD <= 0.55 Nrd (CDA).

Considering a 0,40x0,40 concrete section and type 32/40 concrete, you will have Fck =32 Mpa.

Considering only the concrete section The allowable Normal force should be 32 x 400 x400 x0.65 =3328kN.

It seems that Robot do not consider this limitation. In the section in the picture you will have: 3640x1.01=3676kN that seems out of allowable values.

 

Any suggestion ?

 

40x40.JPG

18 REPLIES 18
Message 2 of 19

This situation has to be checked by the development team. 



Artur Kosakowski
Message 3 of 19

Could you attach the model please? Thank you.



Artur Kosakowski
Message 4 of 19

Hi Artur,

The model I am sending you is a really simple one. Is only a column whith an axial force that I have gruadally incremented in order to test the  EC8 5.4.3.2.1(3)P and the DM14/01/2008 7.4.4.2.2.1 requirement.

Thanks

Message 5 of 19

  What about this issue, any result?

Message 6 of 19
Artur.Kosakowski
in reply to: Tuctas

Currently this provision is not supported in Robot.



Artur Kosakowski
Message 7 of 19

Hi Artur,

I understand.

I think anyway very important that structural analysis software declares clearly what kind of checks is doing especially if it declares that a given regulation is adopted.

 

I understand that the software is sold as is ... but ....


if you make mistakes in the design of an air conditioning system the problem will be that someone may feel hot or cold ... but..... if you make a mistake in dimensioning a structure ........


I think you'll agree with me.
Gabriele

Message 8 of 19

  I agree with GabrieleNovembr, the user should be aware of what provisions are implemented in Robot...

  Furthermore, for so long i thought that this (quite important) provision was taken into account in Robot.. 

Message 9 of 19

Gabriele,

 

The development team has tentatively scheduled to deliver a fix in the next Service Pack which should be available by the end of this month. Please mind that you should have some seismic type combinations created to have this provisions checked.

 

Please note: Our quality assurance teams may need to reschedule some fixes. Please rely on the above timeline information as a guideline only and not a guarantee. We appreciate your understanding in this matter. 

 

 

.



Artur Kosakowski
Message 10 of 19

Artur, i think we all do agree that all the checkings cannot be implemented in one time, espacially because regulations are time-moving related to the feedback on project. Also because these modifications are state-ruled and then are not going by the same timeline than engineering practising.

 

However, as you know, robot or any other soft of the same time is largely used in the design offices world and for some project there is no alternative way chosen to check or design a structure, espacially for big structure -> checkings only consists of X software - verification.

 

That's why it is a key-subject to know which checkings are performed or not in order to implemented internally in some way the complementary required calculations.

 

The question is : Is there any document that listfor example code by code and paragraph by paragraph what is done or not.

 

One could think that this document should be kept secret in ordre to face other soft companies competition BUT :

 

1) this part of the software is "compulsory" if we considered that the soft shall be able to provide model from design to justification

2) this would not be a point to decide to choose Bentley instead of Autodesk because Robot doesn't check BS 8-1 XYZ .. it is a matter of time and not of ability to implement, the decision to choose a soft or another shall not rely on that type of consideration

3) our quality service and then credibility/reputation can be challenged with this kind of matter, what shall I say to a code consultant or a client if I provide a checking and I realized afterwards that part of it is missing ?

 

If this document doens't exist, could transfer this message to the appropriate service? 

 

Thx a lot.

 

By the way, I grant the work you and the team provide, it is essential for "non click-modeling engineers" = enginners who do care about their job and aren't just waiting for green light saying All is OK!

 

Message 11 of 19

If this document doens't exist, could transfer this message to the appropriate service? 

 

I did.



Artur Kosakowski
Message 12 of 19

Thx
Message 13 of 19

Hi Gabriele,

 

Could you have a look at the attached document please?

 

Thank you.



Artur Kosakowski
Message 14 of 19

I  Artur

In the file you will find some comments.

 

Thanks. we all appreciate the work you are doing.

Message 15 of 19

  I agree with GabrieleNovembri: "I think gM =1,5 should be normally used"

  It is obvious that the value γΜ=1.50 should be used...

 

  I also agree with what he said about Artur and all the support team: "we all appreciate the work you are doing."

Message 16 of 19


Artur.Kosakowski wrote:

Gabriele,

 

The development team has tentatively scheduled to deliver a fix in the next Service Pack which should be available by the end of this month. Please mind that you should have some seismic type combinations created to have this provisions checked.

 

Please note: Our quality assurance teams may need to reschedule some fixes. Please rely on the above timeline information as a guideline only and not a guarantee. We appreciate your understanding in this matter. 

 

I'm sorry but the correction has been postponed and has not been included in SP4 for Robot 2014.

.

 



Artur Kosakowski
Message 17 of 19

Sigh !!!
Message 18 of 19
t.sautierr
in reply to: Tuctas

I invite myself in the discussion :

 

EC2 and EC8 is "clear" (let say clear for the eurocode system which is complex for other system!) on the coefficient gamma c to use :

 

EC2 2.4.2.4 : gives the coefficient for durable/non durable and accidental situation (seism is not mentionned and as not to be mixed with accidental because is a special accidental situation due to cyclic loading among other parameters)

EC8 5.2.4 :  tells you that the correct set of values for seism has to be the same than durable/non durable situation (eg : gammac = 1.5) but note (2) tells you that finally each country can choose also accidental .....

EC8 5.2.4 French Annex for example : as we always do different than the others : we chose to use the accidental values : gammac =1.20 and gammas = 1.00 but for concrete we increase the safety unsing 1.30 ....

 

So generally, Seism gammac = 1.50 and gammas = 1.15

For the French, gammac = 1.30 and gammas = 1.00 

 

Sorry my extracts are in French but you have the reference to find them by yourself in english.

Message 19 of 19

Corrected in SP5 for Robot 2014.



Artur Kosakowski

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report