Robot Structural Analysis Software

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Kym Wash

unread,

Aug 5, 2024, 6:44:32 AM8/5/24

to roramweleb

RobotStructural Analysis Professional is structural load analysis software that verifies code compliance and uses BIM-integrated workflows to exchange data with Revit. It can help you to create more resilient, constructible designs that are accurate, coordinated, and connected to BIM.

Robot Structural Analysis Professional is available only in the Architecture, Engineering & Construction Collection, an essential set of integrated Building Information Modeling (BIM) tools. The collection includes:

Robot Structural Analysis Professional is structural load analysis software that verifies code compliance and uses BIM-integrated workflows to exchange data with Revit. It can help you to create more resilient, constructible designs that are accurate, co-ordinated and connected to BIM.

I then proceeded to delete these loads and reapply them using the linear load 2p type. These have been transferred between robot and revit however now when running the analysis I get an error 2110 and no results. When clicking on the error in the relevant load case I can see it highlights all the reapplied loads that I entered using linear load 2p.

PLease can you help correct my model so the loads can be applied. There are lots of loads added this way so a method that can correct them all collectively would be ideal. I also want the model to be able to be transferred between robot and revit.

It seems the quantity of the linear 2p loads is triggering the error 2110. Why is this so. The more streamlined solution applying loads to slab edge is what I usually use but this does not transfer between revet and robot.

Hi @Rafal.Gaweda, i tried your macro convert linear load to lne load. It is quite useful.But is not automatically assigned to load records. Do you fix this bug ? It would be great if it automatically assigns the load records.

I've been doing research on the definiton of flexible diaphragm and have found that it should transfer forces to resisting structures according to tributary area. Rigid diaphragm should transfer forces according to the rigidity of the resisting structures.

I made a simple model and compared the results using these two diaphragms with horizontal load only. The above mentioned definitions do not seem to be true in RSA. You can see from the pictures that the results are almost identical. I would think that when the slab is a flexible diaphragm, the inner walls would have greater resistance than the outer walls. I am very confused and don't know what to believe anymore. Can someone please help me understand how these diaphragms work?

I'm doing a thesis on calculating the rigidity of the construction using RSA and have been trying all sorts of things. I've been comparing different calculation models and after doing some research, I came to think that I should use a diaphragm to transfer wind loads to walls. So I tested the two different diaphragms and got quite different results in deformation. Also the fact that vertical load doesn't affect rigid diaphragm is a bit of a dissapointment. That got me confused and I've been digging information about them. Unfortunately the database on RSA is very limited.

How is it that even though the walls are taking pretty much the same load, the displacement differs? How does RSA even calculate displacement? Comparing displacement results, calculated by hand, with the deformation using RSA aren't even close.

The distribution of forces between flexible and rigid diaphragm begin to differ when more stories are added. The results when using a rigid diaphragm seem to be closer to my calculations when comparing forces only. I suppose I could just leave it at that but I would like to get accurate results. The deformations in lateral direction are also quite different depending what type of floor model I use. Question is, are they reliable? Or do people just throw them in the trashbin?

According to my Knowledge I think Analysis using the rigid diaphragm assumption is generally adequate when the diaphragm in-plane stiffness is high relative to that of the frames. And rigid diaphragm is assumed to distribute horizontal forces to the element incorporation to their relative stiffness (No vertical load transfer) it is assumed that the slab is infinitely rigid along horizontal directions. i.e. horizontal deformation is zero. In this case lateral forces are distributed to each vertical element in the proportion of its stiffness along the direction of the force And also the slab cannot be considered as rigid if there are big openings which cause horizontal deformation of the slab.

A flexible diaphragm will distribute the lateral forces to the elements on a tributary load basis. If you are expecting the slab deformations then modeling flexible diaphragm will be the correct way to handle such cases.

In case of shell element you should use Shell for correct slab behavior and If the purpose is to design the slab itself due to gravity loads (transverse loads to slab plane), then shell action (membrane+flexural) with shear deformation must be used

If I have understood the meaning of tributary area correctly then what I said in the first post still stands. The distribution of the lateral loads shouldn't be the same between a flexible and a rigid diaphragm.

and different between rigid and flexible diaphragm yes i agree with you The distribution of the lateral loads shouldn't be the same for example ( meshing parameters (size )) for flexible diaphragm and mass participation - period

In your example, I think you face difficulties to see difference between flexible and rigid because of the height (depth actually for a slab) of the slab which is quasi squarrish. Try the same example but give a quite long distance between the two concrete cores and you will see...

Try this : 2 spans , 3 columns to support and give a very small section to the middle column, you will see that edges columns will cary more than the middle one. Don't get mix with hyperstaticity, in this case (which very tha same for diaphragm, relative stiffness between elements governs everything), the only point is to consider if the stiffness of the slab acts also or not.

Mode shapes and mode frequencies are the main parameters used in Finite Element Model Updating Techniques where a numerical model is compared to a real model. The objective is to achieve almost identical mode shapes and mode frequencies by changing selected parameters of the numerical model (through an iterative procedure) such as youngs modulus of the material or stiffness of joints etc.

This is what my thesis was based on, I created a model using SAP2000 and one using matlab (called the numericall model) which i had to compare with the real model. In order to check how close my numerical model was with the real structure i had to carry out a modal analysis on the real structure and the compare it to the numerical model. I dont want to go on but my point is that you shoud also consider modal analysis when comparing models

In order to compare the different types of slabs in robot, three structure models have been created, based on a RC 2-storey, 1-bay structure with only difference in the type of slab used at each storey.

Warning message: Cohesion of the calculation model has been provided by the definition of the kinematic constraints in incoherent parts of the finite element mesh. However when i carried the calculations again i didnt get this warning. Does anyone know what this mean?

My next question is: Model 1 and 2 have 98 elements which i am not sure about since the structure is made out of 8 columns, 8 beams and 2 slabs with each slab divided at 25 Finite elements therefore,

2) display the nodes AND the calculation nodes : I think RSA has added callucation nodes in your beams and columns (divided for the cals has you have set coherent matrix) : 98 -50 = 48 / 16 = 3 you shall see two calculation nodes in each beam and columns, then divided in three parts for calcs.

2) I have displayed the nodes and calculation points and It seems that RSA doesnt divide the columns and beams. Please Have a look below. If it did divide the columns then there should have been additional nodes there right?

The objective of this paper is to develop and improve the mechanism and spindle of a six degree of freedom high speed polishing robot arm with good precision, mimicking human arm with the ability to solve the difficulty of polish complex thin parts. That is robot that can run with very high speed and get the best finish products, that is to improve the surface quality, improve time efficiency, reduce hazard, reduce cost, and finally optimize the design. The structural analysis simulations test results of the static structural equivalent (von mises) stress, equivalent elastic strain and Total deformations of this robot is been done with Ansys software, and finally the material selection and design is carried out with Solidworks.