I assume this has been mentioned before (might even be working on it), but being able to specify the steel design parameters in the Modeler would be a game changer. A separate design module would be good too, but I don't think it's necessary.
This was meant for STAAD. I have no idea how it moved or maybe I posted in the wrong place to begin with. Hopefully it can move back there?
I have no issues with the RAM Elements work flow, it's very user friendly.
This request is all over the place (Staad initially, RAM SS and Ram Elements). I moved it under RAM SS since that was the original comment.
There are less criteria and variables to set in Ram Elements, so it's not as big a challenge there.
I generally like the idea of pulling out a lot of the design criteria and code settings to a single master location in Manager, and then replicate those within the various modules for convenience. This would aid the project manager in review and template set up. I know some users who set up model templates with all the typical settings that they start from. That's also quite a time savings.
As for Ram Elements segmentation we do have a tool to segment at nodes and to splice / merge as well.
Thanks for the reply. And I understand the challenge. Something similar exists with RAM Elements, right? Do people have issues with how it is handled there (I don't). My first instinct is that it should be on the user to model the joint/node if you need different parameters along that member. In any case, it would be nice to have an option to use "physical member length" or "analytical member length" (or some other length) as a design parameter.
I don't like the idea of setting default values and changing them later, but maybe I could change my mind on that.
Another helpful tool in RAM Elments that would be helpful here is - a tool that allows the user to break the physical member at the joints where it will be subdivide so they can more easily control that (and conversely be able to un-subdivide the member). I know the goal of the physical modeller is to keep things more "physical", but I don't see this as being a major modelling issue. As long as I can move back and forth between a "divided" member and sub-divided member and I can group things, all is well for me.
This certainly has merit and been discussed on several occasions. The challenge though is in handling situations where the parameters are needed to be different on different segments of a physical member. Say for example a 10ft long physical member that is broken down into two parts one 6ft, one is 4ft and restrained at the junction of the analytical parts. This means that one part will need to be assigned an effective length for the 6ft segment and the other for the four foot segment. It wont be possible to assign the different parameters to each separate part until after the structure has been sub-divided into the analytical parts. There was a suggestion that we provide a method to provide a set of default parameters which can be set in the physical model and changed in the analytical, but the challenge her is determining when these values should be reset by the physical model (typically when the physical model changes) and when the values in the analytical need to be retained. This could easily lead to a misinterpretation between user and system leading to parameters being reset when not intended and not being reset when the user expected it to.
I hope this explains the challenge, but it certainly is in the backlog and a goal/challenge that will be addressed.