Re: Load Takedown analysis strange results

tovarog23 · ‎04-16-2022

Hi!

I have been testing the newly incorporated load takedown analysis in the new RSA 2023 that was just released. I decided to model a simple residential building with confined masonry walls, concrete slab and waffle slab, but the results that I am getting in two beams that form part of the waffle system just don't make any sense.

I have attached some images and the model itself in this link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gz9z2fnqs1o7izq/HOUSE.zip?dl=0

The beams have shear and bending moment values that are way too high considering the geometry and the dead/live load values applied. The deformed shape in that particular location does not make any sense either.

Any help with this would be very appreciated, as I am not sure if I made a mistake or maybe the way in which I modeled the waffle slab system is not supported by the program analysis method.

skellyRSA2023 · ‎04-16-2022

Hi, i think the gravity load takedown only works correctly with slabs modelled using the load takedown one and two way slabs with no FE, i.e. load distribution element only. From looking at the images it seems that you have meshed out the floor slabs and you also have walls supported on the floor slabs, and previously version from what i can remember walls loads built directly of a floor slab which are not meshed out would not have loading distributed correctly.

S.

tovarog23 · ‎04-17-2022

Thanks for the reply. What you are saying makes sense, although I am not using FE for the slab at least, only on the walls which automatically generate, and which should be no issue since I have done other models before with this new feature using FE walls as well. I have updated the link to the model if you want to check it out, there are no walls falling directly on the slab, but rather on transfer beams. Either way, what really confuses me is that the results don't make any sense at the highlighted beams on the attached images. Other models that I have done end up with results that make total sense, but this is not the case....