Staad(X) / Structural

We are currently modeling a building, and I am trying to transfer the geometry from Structural Modeler via Structural Synchronizer into Staad.X.

One problem is that as we usually stop our walls and columns below the slab, and start the next on top of the next slab, we will get 2 nodes in the Staad.X model.

Is this something we should do differently, or is this a known problem which we cannot expect to be without?

Parents
  • In my experience, when working with STAAD or RAM or any of the various finite element analysis applications out there, the default or expectation is that the member (column or beam) and slab centerlines should all match.  That’s how the program knows the members and slabs are connected.  From there, rigid offsets can be used to introduce eccentricities and make the analytical model more geometrically accurate, depending on how far you want to take it.

    If you are stopping your members at the face of intersecting members or shell, that model in STAAD(X) is not initially going to work because you will have two nodes rather than one leaving things unsupported.  It could probably be fixed with various tools inside the STAAD(X) or STAAAD.pro environments, but that’s a lot of extra work.



Reply
  • In my experience, when working with STAAD or RAM or any of the various finite element analysis applications out there, the default or expectation is that the member (column or beam) and slab centerlines should all match.  That’s how the program knows the members and slabs are connected.  From there, rigid offsets can be used to introduce eccentricities and make the analytical model more geometrically accurate, depending on how far you want to take it.

    If you are stopping your members at the face of intersecting members or shell, that model in STAAD(X) is not initially going to work because you will have two nodes rather than one leaving things unsupported.  It could probably be fixed with various tools inside the STAAD(X) or STAAAD.pro environments, but that’s a lot of extra work.



Children
  • Ok, but what is best practice then? On one side or the other we have to address the problem.

    On the calculation side

    During import there should be an option to virtually extend walls and columns to meet slabs.

    In the model

    That requires one thing I always wanted - dynamic subtracting objects from each other. If a wall extends into a slab, the wall should be subtracted from the slab. (The wall would have to be connected to the slab, like a parent - child relationship).

  • One more thing regarding slabs.

    When transferring geometry from Structural to Staad.X via Structural Synchronizer, the reference plane for the surface elements is the bottom of the slab (would probably be the top if I created slab to extend below during creation).

    Using Structurals analytical feature usually generates the analytical members in the centre of the slab.

    New source of headache...?