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 believe that there is no possibility to include these sections in specific justifications like standard sections. As a workaround, it must be possible to assimilate them all to I-sections by taking the minimums of thickness, width and height and justifying them twice, before and after reinforcements. It will probably be necessary to perform additional calculations from the results of the analysis.
If the section is obtained from the section module, you will be able at least to display all stresses. You can define the initial loading with phases, so it will be possible to transpose the new conditions to the previous ones.

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, using the section calculation tool and the catalog of user profiles (but not only), it is normal to enter the closest section type to your case. The fact of defining an empirical section type can cause approximations, for example in the coefficients of wall c/t, h/t, making it possible to define the class, the shear capacity, lateral torsional buckling, etc. As explained it is a workaround for your shapes. 
Take care also to take into account the initial level of loadding of the existing section and temporary actions at site.

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