Vianney Rose Llopis's Communities Activities

V22.06.00.138 Ratio

Vianney Rose Llopis — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 01:44:45 GMT

Hi! So we were starting a project study using version 22.04.00.40. However, we plan to upgrade to V22.06.00.138.

We had a file though using British sections, particularly the angle & tees, with ratios varying significantly between the two STAAD versions.

Please note that these are exactly the same file, only renamed to differentiate which was analyzed in which version.

Note, too, that the resulting forces & loadcases considered are exactly the same, only the ratios are different.

ANL result using V22.04.00.40:

ANL result using V22.06.00.138:

Please clarify the cause of the difference in ratio.

Thank you in advance!

V22.05.00.131 Wind Load Routine

Vianney Rose Llopis — Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:12:58 GMT

We have tried to compare the results of V22.04.00.40 & V22.05.00.131 prior to shift to the latest update - same STAAD file (no modifications).

As shown in the snapshot, significant post-processing output differences were found.

The largest differences noted were on the Wind Load Cases.

The STAAD Generated Wind Load values, however, were found to be the same.

So it must be a change in the calculation/routine that caused the significant difference.

Can anyone please clarify the wind load calculation procedure for Update 5?

Ask A Question II

Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:12:59 GMT

Ask 10 questions in a forum.

STAAD CONNECT Update 5 File with Physical model

Vianney Rose Llopis — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 06:04:35 GMT

I have a staad file with a physical model created using STAAD v22.04.00.40. However, when I opened it using v22.05.00.131, I get above warning & the *.stdp file fails to open.

I tried recreating the same structure using v22.05.00.131 but the same warning appears & still there is no access to the physical model.

Is there any workaround?

Notional Load Factor & TBITER

Vianney Rose Llopis — Thu, 28 Jan 2021 04:59:35 GMT

Please clarify the Notional Load Factor & TBITER parameter

From the manual, it is noted that "For specifying NOTIONAL LOADs, please see TR.32.13 Notional Loads. The notional loads and the factor used is specified entirely in the loading data."

TR.31.7 Definition of Direct Analysis Members

Definition of Direct analysis syntax does not include the notional load factor as well.

But from the sample in the link below, notional load factor was included in the definition.

Example on Direct analysis with steel design as per AISC 360-10 using STAAD.Pro - RAM | STAAD | OpenTower Wiki - RAM | STAAD | OpenTower - Bentley Communities

Questions:

1. Sample was taken from 2018, is this still valid for STAAD CONNECT version 22 Update 4?

2. Please clarify if my understanding is correct, "NOTIONAL LOAD FACTOR" may not be included in the Direct Analysis definition if TBITER is declared & vice versa.

3. Notional Load Factor 0.002 & TBITER has the same purpose which is to iterate the tau-b value.

How to extract number of load cases/combinations in an Load Envelope using OpenSTAAD?

Raviraj Swami — Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:20:44 GMT

I have 4 load envelopes. I would like to extract number of load cases/combinations in an Load Envelope using OpenSTAAD vba function.

Also, I would like to extract an array of load cases/combinations included in any given envelope number.

Is there any way to extract the same using OpenSTAAD vba function?

Or, is there any way to extract support reactions for given envelope number using OpenSTAAD vba function?

I am using STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition - Version 22.00.00.15.

GetRepeatLoadCount Syntax

Vianney Rose Llopis — Thu, 14 Mar 2019 06:40:02 GMT

I plan to get the total number of primary load cases & repeat loads, thus, I tried below code

Dim objOpenSTAAD As Object = GetObject(, "StaadPro.OpenSTAAD")

            Dim pLC As Int32, pLC2 As Int32
            Dim pLCn() As Int32
            pLC = CInt(objOpenSTAAD.Load.GetPrimaryLoadCaseCount)
            pLC2 = CInt(objOpenSTAAD.Load.GetRepeatLoadCount)

pLC returns a value of 240

pLC2 returns a value of 0

Please note that the file actually has 62 Primary Load Cases & the rest are repeat loads.

Why is the GetRepeatLoadCount() returning 0? Is there any workaround?

STAAD.Pro CONNECT OpenSTAAD for Physical Members

Vianney Rose Llopis — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:46:35 GMT

I have found these OpenSTAAD commands for Physical Member in the OpenSTAAD Documentation.

However, they do not seem to work.

Can you confirm if OpenSTAAD for the Physical model is not yet functional.

Thanks!

Staad pro member releases selection using Openstaad

Parthasarathy Ganesan — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:39:33 GMT

Hi,

I want to select the all members based on the releases using OPENSTAAD command. But the given (below) is not working.

objOpenSTAAD.Property.GetMemberReleaseSpec(lBeamNo, 0, lReleaseArray, lSpringConstArray

kindly suggest me how to overcome this problem.

Regards,

G.Parthasarathy

Using the South Korean database in Physical Workflow

Vianney Rose Llopis — Tue, 14 Aug 2018 07:45:07 GMT

Is it possible to use the existing south Korean db3 file in assigning sections in the Physical workflow?

I am using STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition-Version 21.00.02.43

Grouping of Analytical Members for Structure with Physical Model (STAAD Connect)

Vianney Rose Llopis — Tue, 07 Aug 2018 09:04:52 GMT

For structures with Physical Models, any addition or modification to the Physical model seem to cause the Analytical members to RE-NUMBER.

This causes the Groupings (using Analytical Member numbers) to REQUIRE REGROUPING.

This is acceptable for simple structures. However, for complex structures, this is quite tedious.

My questions would then be:

1. Is there a way to update the grouping to consider the physical member number?

2. What are the cases on which analytical members renumber? (So we can try to avoid it)

3. Is there an option for analytical members to not renumber? (For example, additional analytical members would just follow from the last number used. At least, only the new member numbers need to be added to the group definition list)

Thanks

OpenSTAAD in Physical Workflow

Vianney Rose Llopis — Wed, 25 Jul 2018 01:24:13 GMT

I am using STAAD.Pro Connect Edition Build 21.00.02.43.

I would like to know if there is a syntax for OpenSTAAD in the Physical workflow that would return the coordinates of the Physical members?

We plan to develop a program that would create views based on the physical members' location (per plan & per elevation).

Thanks.

Section Database in STAAD Connect Physical Model

Vianney Rose Llopis — Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:01:46 GMT

Is it possible to customize an existing section database to include only certain sections & rename it as a database for only a particular project?

For example, a project that utilizes British sections will use only selected members due to commercial availability, for example.

It would then be helpful if we could edit an existing section database to include only the required members for that project so that it will be easier during the design stage.

Ask A Question I

Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:12:27 GMT

Ask a question in a forum.

STAAD CONNECT to Tekla 2017i

Vianney Rose Llopis — Mon, 09 Jul 2018 05:14:35 GMT

So I have tried interoperation between Tekla Structures and STAAD Connect thru ISM.

It works well for the update of geometry & structural members. However, our workflow is as below:

1. Modelling of structural members in TS

2a. Export TS model to STAAD for analysis & design.

2b. Simultaneous with above step, TS is updated for non-structural members such as joists for drawing preparation.

3. Import of STAAD design back to TS.

In the last step, however, the modelled joists are also deleted.

Is there a way for the non-structural members to not get affected by the ISM repository update?

Thanks!