Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

I am applying an area load to an open lattice structure. But when I run the analysis and look at the transient loads, it doesn't seem to be considering the chevron bracing between columns on the lattice. I am pretty sure that, even though it is only L2x2x1/4 shapes, it still would be exposed and still needs to have wind applied to it. I have the member type set as vertical brace. When I change the member type to column, RISA applies the transient loads to the braces as well. Does anyone have any solution to this? I would like to keep the type set as vertical braces for seismic purposes.

RE: Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

I built a little mock-up model and got the same thing. Couldn't find anything on the HELP screens.
I think you just need to email RISA and ask them.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

Glad I'm not the only one. I'm inclined to believe though that it may not be necessary to do so since RISA doesn't consider shielding when applying area wind loads onto open structures. The automatic distribution of the load on all faces on the plane will probably still give a reasonably conservative load.

RE: Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

It's in the help file, under Members -> Member Spreadsheet. Scroll down to Member Type, it's number 3 in the list:

"3) If you are using member area loads, loads will not be attributed to members defined as Hbraces or Vbraces."

That doesn't help you with what you're trying to do, but at least it's noted.

RE: Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

Well at least I'm not crazy. In that case, does anyone have experience modeling open structures using area loads for wind? What are some tips for getting accurate results?

RE: Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

shooting from the hip calling it a brace is probably limiting the behavior to axial forces only which would be why calling it a column then has it pick up the wind pressure since it can then actually develop reactionary forces.

Edit: seems the manual hints at that based on Winelandv's post

Anyway to accomplish similar behavior as a brace with end releases and maybe modified stiffness's?

Open Source Structural Applications: https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

RE: Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

Nice find winelandv!!

I'd tend to just leave the braces as "vertical braces" in RISA and manually add a distributed wind load to them.
Not that difficult if you have all similar brace widths and you can select them all and attribute the distributed load to "all selected members" at once.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Applying wind area loads to vertical braces

Note: This was left over from the original design of area loads. There wasn't an "open structure" option originally. So, they were meant for Live load and roof live load applied to floors, or wind loads on horizontal girts. Then it made sense that the horizontal bracing and such shouldn't get the area loads attributed to them.

Then we added in the open structure area loading. It was built as a sub-set of the existing function, so it had all the same limitations. Makes sense for a developer, but not for an engineer using that feature. I'm pretty sure I wrote up an enhancement that would make the open structure area loads behave different from the regular area loads in this regard..... I'm pretty sure that enhancement request has a good number of users associated with it.

So, why hasn't it been done yet? Well, I'm not there anymore, so I can't say. I have two theories based on my guess about how life works at the NEW (but perhaps not improved) incarnation of RISA / Nemetschek.

1) My write up might be a sub-item on a larger feature related to revamping open structure wind loading. i.e. to include shape factors, shielding, only consider one plane, consider an icing or fireproofing area for various members, et cetera. You can see how it could get lost in that larger feature. It would help to ask them about it and see if it could get done sooner without all the other hoopla.

2) While it would be a very easy change to make, if there isn't a revenue based reason to do it (i.e. can they sell more copies by advertising this new feature), then it may get pushed down the line a bit. Remember, the management over there is entirely composed of the old Sales / Marketing staff. They are engineers, or they were at one time. But, most of the senior technical folks were replaced. So, there may not be a real "champion" for users anymore. A lot of good, recently minted PE's there. But, not many with a lot of real practical engineering experienc. that ave the clout to stand up for technical issues.... Or, the ones who do have some clout may be reticent after seeing the folks (like me) who used to be the ones to stand up for such things get pushed out the door. Not saying that's why we got pushed out the door. Just saying that it could have left an impression.... squeaky wheel gets the axe, that sort of thing.

Obvious Caveat: I don't particularly want to get sued by the new version of RISA/ Nemetschek. Clearly I am an ex employee with the kind of biases that an ex employee (disgruntled or not) may have. Also, I now work for one of RISA's competitors. Therefore, any opinion I have stated on the RISA program or the Nemetschek company/ subsidiary have to be viewed with the understanding that I even may have a financial incentive to be unfair. Personally don't believe that I'm bein unfair. But, I have to acknowledge that we are not always the best judges of our own neutrality.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close