Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Playing Around with Tapered Beams

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Playing Around with Tapered Beams

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

    Tell me what you think.
    Attached Files
    -Alex Cunningham

    #2
    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.
    Gonçalo Feio
    "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance - you know there's no confidence to equal it. It's only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you're timid and careful." George Orson Welles

    Comment


      #3
      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.
      -Alex Cunningham

      Comment


        #4
        Dumb question from a non-structural person (just a dumb architect), why not just use a triangular void to make the beam tapered
        Klaus Munkholm
        "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Munkholm View Post
          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!
          -Alex Cunningham

          Comment


            #6
            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.
            Gonçalo Feio
            "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance - you know there's no confidence to equal it. It's only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you're timid and careful." George Orson Welles

            Comment


              #7
              time to sleep now, but I will look tomorrow.
              Julien
              "Au royaume des aveugles, les borgnes sont mal vus!"
              P. DAC
              Follow me on Twitter @Jbenoit44 - Blog: http://aecuandme.wordpress.com/

              Comment


                #8
                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.
                Erik Snell, P.E.
                Factory Worker (Principal User Experience Designer)
                I am an Autodesk employee and the opinions or commentary I provide are my own and not necessarily that of Autodesk, Inc.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by TheViking View Post
                  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?
                  -Alex Cunningham

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Alex Cunningham View Post
                    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
                    Erik Snell, P.E.
                    Factory Worker (Principal User Experience Designer)
                    I am an Autodesk employee and the opinions or commentary I provide are my own and not necessarily that of Autodesk, Inc.

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X