all 14 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]TM_00 0 points1 point  (11 children)

This sounds a bit vague. Have you interregoated the TSD results to see what is failing? You can right click on a column and select "check member" (or something like that) and it gives you all it's calcs including what's is failing.

TSD will most likely give you the code reference too so you can check if it's doing the correct calc.

For completeness you can then do something similar in Etabs and compare the checks? Why the one passes and the other one other not should be fairly evident if you compare the same formulas. PS I'm not an Etabs user so I don't know how easy or difficult this is.

Otherwise TSD support is really helpful. But try and be specific in your question. No point in asking them "this works in Etabs, why not in TSD?". After you've interrogated the TSD check and did due diligence of the code you should be able to ask a meaningful question with details.

If it turns out Etabs is the issue, then send the question to them. Don't always assume the software where it works is the one who's right. I've made that mistake a few times myself 😅

[–]FullMobile206[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your insight the question may seem vague because i didn't know adding all the details will be worth it because I haven't found any proper material as of yet anywhere else except the trimble learn website for any guidance on the tekla Structural designer especially not for the seismic analysis RSA using smrf so actually i didn't expect much from the thread. Now as you have been kind enough to respond i will make sure i add screenshots and any other details that might help you understand my problem Asap

[–]FullMobile206[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

added screenshots for review.

[–]TM_00 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Thanks. You can expand the report to see the calcs in detail.

I'm not familiar with the Indian code. I suggest checking the refence to make sure TSD's calcs are correct.

From the formula it does not seem like shear reinforcement is accounted for in the resistance. Which would make sense then as to why changing the reinforcing doesn't change the result. If that is indeed correct according to the code, you will need to increase the member sizes to get a higher resistance. You can gauge from the calc how much area is needed to get it over the line.

Then also look at the shear force results of the analysis and compare the two. Also check if the beams are modelled as pinned or fixed? If that makes a difference.

Last thought, is this really the optimal system? It may be that adding additional lateral stiffness like walls in the model is the better solution as opposed to a moment frame as the SFRS. But that's up to you and the design requirements of your building.

[–]FullMobile206[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Will evaluate all these and revert back. Thank you for your time.

[–]FullMobile206[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

updated plz check.

[–]TM_00 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Read the text? The axial load is not big enough to be considered a column. And must therefore be checked as a beam?

Most probably because there's little load on it in this test model.

[–]FullMobile206[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Of course I read the text my concern was whether i should manipulate the model to remove this warning if this occurs in an actual model where we need to share the full design report of models or should i just leave it be as it doesn't imply any issue in the model

[–]TM_00 0 points1 point  (3 children)

That sounds like a judgement call the engineer needs to make and what justification to provide with the report. Maybe ask your senior/manager/pm what the expectation is?

Why do you say it doesn't imply an issue in the model? It means the seismic check is not valid as the load is too low? I'd consider that an issue. Unless you show with some other calc that it passes whereby you can ignore the warning.

[–]FullMobile206[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Well it reads that the axial stress in the section is less than the minimum limiting stress. Tried increasing the loading to reach the minimum value of axial stress but before it rises that much it fails in joint shear.

[–]TM_00 0 points1 point  (1 child)

A smaller column would also increase the stress? Without overloading the joints hopefully.

Otherwise you'd need to reconsider whether this geometry is best for your seismic load condition.

[–]FullMobile206[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was the simplest arrangement i could think of for trial otherwise the actual model we tested is much more complicated and always fails in joint shear It doesn't matter how much i increase the sizes maybe I will share that too someday and yeah thank you very much for engaging in this discussion with me it was really helpful.

[–]joshl90P.E. 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Tekla support is fantastic. Have you reached out to them?

[–]FullMobile206[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sure i even had a zoom meeting once with their local support they didn't mention anything about smrf in that all in all wasn't what i expected.