Automatic Light Gauge Steel Frame Creator And Panelizer macro

[thschrader]

@Humberto:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=26293

[thschrader]

Hi Umberto,
you can use shell elements for FEM-calculation directly generated from the solid.
It is not necessary to extract faces from solid. When adding *BUCKLE 1 to the
input deck, you can run a buckling-analysis. Test-file with cleared mesh:

shellTest.FCStd

(188.33 KiB) Downloaded 36 times

You should enable "split writing of *.inp" in Preferences/FEM
When using the pipeline tool you should enable "enable backlight colour" in Preferences/Display
for a better viewing.

buckle1.JPG (16.04 KiB) Viewed 1155 times

[fandaL]

Hi Umberto,
you can use shell elements for FEM-calculation directly generated from the solid.
It is not necessary to extract faces from solid.
...
shellTest.FCStd

In this way (Mesh element dimension = 2D set for meshing) GMSH gives shells, but that are shells on the original solid surfaces. So your model contains something as "double profiles".
It's hard to catch it on a printscreen - you can check it by using Clipping plane and zooming on the mesh.

[thschrader]

It's hard to catch it on a printscreen - you can check it by using Clipping plane and zooming on the mesh.

Hi fandal,
did the same procedure with a solid cube.

cube_buckling.FCStd

(7.75 KiB) Downloaded 37 times

cube_shells.JPG (126.83 KiB) Viewed 1128 times

buckling.JPG (124.93 KiB) Viewed 1128 times

[bernd]

right click on the mesh --> mesh informations prints a pop up with the mesh details. Another possibility is the data tab of the property editor when the mesh is selected. Ther the mesh details are printed too. There you can see if a mesh has volumes.

fandaL is right in this case the analysis is don with the whole surface off the profile.

[hhassey]

The structural switch is ready!!!

Thanks to Polaris for her contribution to this.

Just turn the Structural property to True and adjust your parameters as needed

freecad.png (193.14 KiB) Viewed 1016 times

Box= True, The beams form a box otherwise they form an I beam

You can grab a copy of the latest version as always: Here:

[bitacovir]

The structural switch is ready!!!

Thanks to Polaris for her contribution to this.

Just turn the Structural property to True and adjust your parameters as needed

Box= True, The beams form a box otherwise they form an I beam

You can grab a copy of the latest version as always: Here:

It is nice hhassey. But a structural frame should look like this:

structural_frame.png (202.35 KiB) Viewed 992 times

[hhassey]

It is nice hhassey. But a structural frame should look like this:

Thanks for pointing that out, and taking the time to make a drawing. it seems to me that if you place a beam all along the top of the assembly then the one on top of the window opening is not needed, it is redundant. I am basing the design on the attached paper:

Anyways, I will fix the double studs that you mention. and keep the beams as the attached paper shows. I still have a little bug to fix on the box beam, (they should be as wide as the whole frame!)

The ball is rolling!

[bitacovir]

Thanks for pointing that out, and taking the time to make a drawing. it seems to me that if you place a beam all along the top of the assembly then the one on top of the window opening is not needed, it is redundant. I am basing the design on the attached paper:

Anyways, I will fix the double studs that you mention. and keep the beams as the attached paper shows. I still have a little bug to fix on the box beam, (they should be as wide as the whole frame!)

The ball is rolling!

mmmmm. Yes and No. The truth should be "it depends...". A beam only on windows and doors is the minimum structure. It is ok in many cases. But in other circumstances, you should use a top beam along the whole wall. My country (Chile) is a seismic country with a lot of earthquakes. Here, you MUST consider beams and columns for each wall and a reinforcement frame for each opening (windows and doors). Therefore, "it depends...". In this case, It depends on how far you want to go with the features of your macro. I know it is a lot of work. Anyway, thanks for the tool.

[hhassey]

mmmmm. Yes and No. The truth should be "it depends...". A beam only on windows and doors is the minimum structure. It is ok in many cases. But in other circumstances, you should use a top beam along the whole wall. My country (Chile) is a seismic country with a lot of earthquakes. Here, you MUST consider beams and columns for each wall and a reinforcement frame for each opening (windows and doors). Therefore, "it depends...". In this case, It depends on how far you want to go with the features of your macro. I know it is a lot of work. Anyway, thanks for the tool.

I guess the macro should be broken down into several macros, i.e. one that does a stud, another a track and so on... so that you can start with the automatic macro and then fine tune your design by hand if needed. I want to make it as real life usable as possible...

Seismic Country.... Actually for seismic we need to incorporate diagonals, but, who in his right mind tries to use light gauge as a shear wall?
that does not make a lot of sense to me, but putting those diagonals by hand is very easy right now!