Playing Around with Tapered Beams

[Alex Cunningham]

Thought I would take a stab at making a WT shape modifiable for tapering.
Take a look.

Tell me what you think.

[feio]

Just a thought:
As those tapered beams start as one standard beam (full H shape), why bot make the remaining half viable?
The chances of using the same profile are some, so I would made the formula:
Original profile (W, HE, IPE, etc) height = H
for the starting profile as: H - taper depth
and for the end: taper depth

One other comment: there is no need for you to have 2x2 profile families. 2 will do the business if you make the 2 taper depth parameters inside the frame family and create 2 types in each visibility profile family, each one with the height parameter pointing to a diferent parent parameter.

[Alex Cunningham]

Thanks the the reply Gonçalo.

I was thinking something along the same lines. I will try to find time to modify the framing families in the future. I created this family because it was a specific need in a project. It just so happend that it was a WT shape in the project. I was trying to make this as user friendly and simple as could be. I think its silly that they will take a full Wide flange and cut it down for the WT shapes. But i am not a steel worker.


Thats a good point about the profiles. I will try out your idea if i ever get the time to make this taper family into more shapes.

[Munkholm]

Dumb question from a non-structural person (just a dumb architect), why not just use a triangular void to make the beam tapered

[Alex Cunningham]

Dumb question from a non-structural person (just a dumb architect), why not just use a triangular void to make the beam tapered

First off, I am glad you understand you are just a dumb architect. LMAO :beer:

I dont see any reason why that wouldnt work either. It also could be added to every framing shape family with a switch on it. This way you can make any beam tapered without having to have seperate families.


All good feedback!

[feio]

I am also not sure about the full piece cut. But it just seems logical to use them in such way.
Any structure user out there? I'm a bit like Klaus!
And about the void... doesn't seem so elegant. Although it would just require the simpler sweep.

[jbenoit44]

time to sleep now, but I will look tomorrow.

[TheViking]

The void will give you the correct geometry but it will not export correctly to an analysis application. Most perform name matching to the family/type names. If you have an instance parameter change the geometry they may not catch the change. I would test prior to implementing in your office.

[Alex Cunningham]

The void will give you the correct geometry but it will not export correctly to an analysis application.

wait wait wait... you can successfully export to analysis software?

[TheViking]

wait wait wait... you can successfully export to analysis software?

Well I can do anything since I have access to the source code (too bad C++ is like a foreign language to me).

On a serious note, we are always working to improve the workflow with analytical applications. With most we can only provide the API and hope they use the new functionality, however, with RSA you should see much better export/import functionality with this release. Give it a try and please let me know how it goes.

Erik