Somme reactions values show "Aucun"

[genieyas]

Hello, 

I have another problem about values of reactions wich shows 'Aucun"

@genieyas Artur Kosakowski marked post as the solution. If it did not work as an answer, please post your reply in this thread so that I can unmark the solution. 

[Rafacascudo]

Same thing happens here when asking for all simple cases+combinations. But it works when asking only for combinations

probably some memory problem . Maybe official support can explain better

[genieyas]

Think you for the ansewer.
But i have a problem with strip foundation calculation
Could you please check this for me
Sincerly

[Refaat]

Hi @genieyas

Just try to deselect the results of moving load case (3-BC) since the results of it dependent on the load position and distance. Please see the below pictures.

Refaat

[genieyas]

Think You Mr Refaat for the information

But even if i deselect the case Bc i always have the results of somme reactions "Aucun" (See attached capture)

Think You

[genieyas]

Mr Refaat

I can see also that no reactions values are imported from robobat for strip foundation calculation (see attached 😞 All values équal to zéro

Could you pls help me to solve this issue

Sincerly

[Refaat]

Hi @genieyas

Try to delete all the load cases and the combination cases then select the combination cases and the load cases except the moving load case (3- BC).

Then easily to get the results for both load cases and combination load cases (as in the captures of my previous post of this thread).

Refaat

[genieyas]

Hi Refaat.
I will do so i hope it will works.
What do you think about the other issue of reinforcement of the strip foundation: whene i check loud cases imported frol robobat to the module of reinforcement of foundation i found values of loads equal to zero.

Could you pls check this for me i tried i lot of times

[Artur.Kosakowski]

Hi @genieyas

Try to open your file in the repair mode following the steps described in this article.

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.

[genieyas]

Hello Mr Artur.Kosakowski

The problem is solved think you very much

I will try now calculationg my strip foundation

i hope it works now

Sincerly

[genieyas]

Hello Mr Artur.Kosakowski

It reamin one more problem

The calculation of reinforcement of my strip foundation gives me big frame (see attached pls)

Also i can see load case 0 whene askin for srip foundation reinforcement

Could you pls help me

Sincerly

[Artur.Kosakowski]

Hi @genieyas

Try to import combinations and increase the thickness of the foundation.

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.

[genieyas]

Hello Mr 

I think this frame is exagerated.

I take the same combinations used by robobat to calculate the spread footing in the modele (version used Robobat 2018; see 1st attached pls), and i go to Robobat 2014 in alone modele of spread footing, after calculation: the results are differents (See attached two)

Sincerly

[genieyas]

Hello Mr Artur.Kosakowski

I think this frame is exagerated.

The results are different when i use robobat 2014, in fact i fellow this steps: ( FYI: The model i use is Robobat 2018)

- i Take all cominations imported from robobat from the "Note de calcul" (see 1er attached) (Slidings, soil capacity....)

- I enter this combinations (4 combinations) in the alone model of reinforcement of spread footing at Robobat 2014 

- I check the results : They are differents:

Sincerly

[Artur.Kosakowski]

Hi @genieyas

Could you attach the RSA 2014 rtd file with the calculated foundation? 

[genieyas]

Hello Mr Artur.Kosakowski;

Attached the RSA 2014 of the spread foundation (Module alone)

Sincerly

[Artur.Kosakowski]

Hi @genieyas

I opened the foundation as defined in RSA 2014 in RSA 2018 and locked all dimensions. Then I calculated it -> no errors reported which means that most likely the foundation you recreated in RSA 2018 is not exactly the same as the original one you tried to design in RSA 2018. The same for unlocked dimensions.

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.

[genieyas]

Hello Mr Artur.Kosakowski

I think that the loads are the same in the two models (2018 and 2014), the only difference is the soil (angle of friction):

- in the 2018 (Module alone): The angle of friction is 0.58 (see attached2)

- In the 2018 (results imported from the modele): The angle of friction is 0.30 (see attached 1)

Even if i use the same soil 

Why the results are differents?

Sincerly

[genieyas]

Hello Mr Artur.Kosakowski

I think that the loads are the same in the two models (2018 and 2014), the only difference is the soil (angle of friction):

- in the 2018 (Module alone): The angle of friction is 0.58 (see attached1)

- In the 2018 (results imported from the modele): The angle of friction is 0.30 (see attached 2)

Even if i use the same soil 

Why the results are differents?

Sincerly

 

Note de calcul spread footing - RSA 2018 imported from model.png ‏176 KB

 

Note de calcul spread footing - RSA 2018 module alone.png ‏176 KB

[genieyas]

Hello Mr  Artur.Kosakowski

I hope my question is understandable, and excuse me my english is not good

If you don't understad some thin please ask me

Sincerly