Applying Floor Load

RE: Applying Floor Load

Arvind Marathe — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:56:23 GMT

I am facing similar issue. I tried grouping all the relavent beams in one floor group, then tried isolating the issue. _FLR3 floor group of the attached file is causing some weird graphics. The program runs though. Also, is there any way to enforce one way distribution towards channels? This command apparently doesn't work for the curved beams. Attached is the STAAD model of a vessel platform.

Would the Area Load not distribute the load properly - similar to the Floor Load?

Thanks in advance.

communities.bentley.com/.../IBC-2012-STRUCTURE_5F00_straight-beams.std

RE: Applying Floor Load

Sye — Wed, 24 May 2017 17:08:04 GMT

Modeling issues are typical when a load generation fails. So a good place to start is to use the diagnostic tools provided under the Tools menu. Examining the floor load distribution would tell you which panels have problems. Since you applied the floor load to groups, group definitions automatically becomes a suspect.

RE: Applying Floor Load

ARIF AHAMED — Wed, 24 May 2017 05:12:59 GMT

Thanks a lot sir that did solved all my query.
But please let me know how you perform such minute checks to fix those problems.

RE: Applying Floor Load

Sye — Tue, 23 May 2017 17:44:02 GMT

There are a number of modeling issues. I have tried to address the issues in the first floor and you need to look at it and fix the issues existing in the other ones which should in turn fix the floor load generation problems.

There was a physical gap between nodes 171 and 169. I created a new member 835 connecting the two.

There were some very close nodes like say 168, 170 etc. and some of the members were connecting to one whereas the rest were connecting to the other leading to improper connectivity issues. I merged the two and kept only 168

There were issues with group definitions with some members being left out from the groups leading to closed loops not being formed which is essential for floor load generation. For example the _1STFLOOR group definition was changed from

_1STFLOOR 189 TO 191 194 196 198 TO 220 222 TO 231 233 TO 245 247 TO 252 254 -

255 TO 264 266 268 269 271 TO 273 275 277 TO 286 290 TO 295

to the one below

_1STFLOOR 188 189 TO 191 194 196 198 TO 220 221 222 TO 231 233 TO 245 -

247 TO 252 254 255 TO 264 266 268 269 271 TO 273 275 277 TO 286 290 TO 295 835

The start of the beam 228 was offset from the node 131 whereas this could be avoided if the node 131 would have been in line with node 172 and 115.

So I moved the joint 131 and removed the offsets as show next

JOINT COORDINATES

…

*131 -10.1738001267 2.50000007751 20.5614000339;

131 -10.0516003644 2.50000007751 20.5614000339;

MEMBER OFFSET

…

*122 228 408 581 754 START 0.122199 0 0

122 408 581 754 START 0.122199 0 0

A modified file is attached for your reference.

communities.bentley.com/.../G_2B00_3_5F00_modified.std