Design of Composite Steel Beams in Autodesk Robot 

PART II ….. THE RSAP ENVIRONMENT AND THE PLUG-IN 21:17 😁 LOL, Wise move of selecting the shell model type right at the beginning before anything else! I must confess that, just like the Editor, I was patiently waiting for the usual mess up there 😁. 27:43 to 28:30 Thanks for running through some of the possible errors and warnings that could happen when exporting elements from Robot to the composite beam design extension. It did help me to not get easily discouraged. I have encountered a number of warnings during the export process. Thankfully to the way in which CEE have handled the warnings in this video, I eventually was able to handle my warnings. It appears though that the extension does NOT support beam sections that are not from the AISC database. I receive a warning that “None of the selected members could be designed” each time I try to use or to select a beam section from other databases other than the AISC. The extension is working fine for me if I use W-beam sections that are from the AISC database. I could not find a setting in the extension itself to change the supported database [if anyone knows how to, kindly advise]. The only place in the extension where I could choose a different beam section size is under “beam properties” in the Design sub-menu =31:17 on this video (only select W-sections are available there to choose from). Alas, I can only hope that Autodesk will improve compatibility with other sections from other databases in future releases. The extension appears to be a good extension. The “Design” options and the “Report” are quite neat. The “Design” options in the extension can also be directly used to design a steel beam without composite action (much in the same way of thinking as the nice and cool idea that was communicated by the CEE at 31:38, thank you CEE for sharing this practical approach and tip). The extension can also send back and automatically update the RSAP model with the beams that it has designed. From what I could gather (I may be wrong); The extension currently only supports simply supported beams (i.e., the beam with +ve (sagging) bending moment arrangement). It has its own internal engine that it uses to calculate the internal forces from the load cases that are mapped directly from RSAP. It appears that it also uses its own load combination factors (I changed the Codes for Combinations from Job Preferences and this did not seem to make a difference in the extension combination factors. The extension did not even allow me to change the combination factors manually in the extension except for the one custom load combination and its associated combination factors which the extension does allow a user to change). I noticed an option in the extension menu itself under Edit>Composite settings> Design Tab, to change the source of “Internal (presumably design) Forces” from the extension own Internal Engine to RSAP, I wonder how this will work considering the need for various design combinations that seem to be embedded or built into the extension? Perhaps I’ll dive in later and see. What was interesting with this option was that when one selects RSAP as the source of “Internal Forces”, the selection triggered two information boxes which required that the user should implement “pinned-pinned” releases on the beams in the RSAP model; and that the slab panels in the RSAP model should be analysed using “simplified trapezoidal and triangular method” as opposed to FE. This in a way answered my next question; I am still going to ask this next question below for completeness: Question: In the RSAP model that was used on this video, the steel beams that are carrying the slab were not released and therefore they had developed some -ve moments near their supports. With reference to the CEE note at 10:35, I suppose it will be correct to say that strictly speaking, one should consider to release such steel beams if one intends to model them (beams) as simply supported beams? Also, the above is not relevant when the extension is set to use its own internal engine to calculate the beam internal forces? I have enjoyed this video and I am looking forward to the next CEE videos. Keep well MJ Regards DK Ps. There seem to be a growing “push” by some viewers for a “full-structure-or-a-full-building”; I certainly hope that these “push” does not derail the CEE from implementing its own contents according to its own pace and plans. In my opinion, the CEE has been excellent so far in selecting and deciding upon the types of topics to present to the viewers and I hope that the CEE will continue to do so under no undue pressure. I don’t doubt that the time for a full-structure-or-a-full-building will come, I just hope that that time is not rushed and that it comes only when the CEE is ready for it, and not at any other moment before that.

Thanks for sharing you're the best

Please make a full building analysis and design

Hello CEE, PART I This is a very nice and a well-received practical topic. I find your theoretical discussions including the practical and construction tips and the reference material to be unmatched as always. I especially appreciate the mentioning and provision of the glimpse (in CEE style) of all of the important concepts that are involved including the transverse shear and the shear flow equations; and the significance of the type of construction of the slab on the slab ability to provide lateral supports to the steel beams. I find these hints to be really helpful in pointing the user to the right directions. 06:40 Truth be told, up until now that the CEE has mentioned this, I never really paid attention to the implications of the Ultimate Limit States approach on the use of elastic analysis theory. Thanks for bringing this up. 10:10 I am covered with regards to the composite behaviour under the +ve (sagging) bending moment. I have also looked at the referenced text for the case of continuous beams in zones of -ve (hogging) moment. The conclusion from the referenced text indicates that “……. the additional strength gained from considering [the other] composite action [involving the structural steel beam and the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the slab] for negative moment is relatively small. And if the steel shape alone is relied on to resist the negative moment, cover plates are sometimes added to the beam flanges to increase the moment strength….” Question: In consideration of the above conclusion, is it not better to avoid the negative moments all together for designs that involve composite slabs? In your experience, what (if any) would you consider to be practical situations where continuous composite slabs with negative moments are beneficial? Would a consideration that a continuous beam will deflect less than a simply supported beam for relatively long spans be enough to offset the above conclusions in favour of a continuous composite slab for instance? 11:35 🤣 “……all engineers could use software, MOST of them will not blunder anything….” 🤣 I must say that with every video release by the CEE channel, this statement is becoming truer and truer by the day (week), one video at a time. Better still, the CEE channel is levelling the knowledge playing field through clear discretization of the underlying principles and concepts for various subjects. Consequently, the goal post for “a competitive edge” is constantly shifting with the CEE channel…. all aboard! hop on! … 🚉🚅 Comment continued in PART II.....

Hi dear CEE, love this pluggin thank you very much! PD: you lost an opportunity to view the “erratic deformation” between slabs and beams haha

Amazing! the only video on RU-vid and very useful to this topic! I have a question please : Does the steel beams fixities need to be pinned-pinned or leave it to default??? thank youuuuuu

kindly adress the buckling parameters in member types because i think that's the elephant in the room