Code member verification for customized section and composed section

[vanderson.mapdata]

Dear members,

I have a customer that works with a lot of situation to make reinforcement of existing structures. In this way, he needs to define new members (solid or thin walled) or complex section like image below:

Once composed section is defined, when it will be saved is necessary to save in database and choose the correct type:

First image situations doesn't match with listed section in second image and in this way it's necessary to use "?" option. Is that correct?

I watched video "How to create and run code verification of user defined section" and is not clear for composed sections.

Also, code member verification in Robot is just available when composed profile is defined by section type like defined below with information defined in red rectangle?

Regards

[Stephane.kapetanovic]

hi @vanderson.mapdata 

I don’t believe it’s possible to include these custom sections in standard justification procedures. A practical alternative would be to treat them as I-sections by using the minimum thickness, width, and height values. You would need to justify the section twice—once before and once after reinforcement. This method would likely require additional calculations based on analysis results.

If the section is generated from the section module, you can at least visualize all stress results. By defining the initial loading in phases, you’ll be able to apply the new conditions to the previous state.

Best Regards

[vanderson.mapdata]

Thanks a lot @Stephane.kapetanovic for your answer regarding this case.

Just to be clear, in Robot does it possible to make code member verification just when section profile is defined using some option profile in this list below instead of "?"option?

When you wrote that's necessary to do adittional verification, you mean that is necessary to do aditional calculation because profile is defined with simplification and also isn't covered by design codes?

Regards,

[Stephane.kapetanovic]

hi @vanderson.mapdata 

Yes, when using the section calculation tool and the user-defined profile catalog (among others), it is standard practice to select the section type that most closely matches your actual geometry. Choosing an empirical or approximate section type can introduce deviations—particularly in coefficients such as c/t or h/t—which affect the classification, shear capacity, lateral torsional buckling, and more.

This approach provides a practical way to handle custom shapes when no exact equivalent exists. Be sure also to consider the initial loading state of the existing structure, as well as any temporary actions during construction.

Best regards

[vanderson.mapdata]

Thanks a lot @Stephane.kapetanovic for all information!

Do you have an example that you used this workflow to make code member verification for custom profiles in Robot?

Regards