STAAD.Pro Ideas Portal
Welcome to the STAAD.Pro Ideas portal. The purpose of this site is to post ideas for enhancements and new features. We value your feedback and our team regularly reviews your suggestions for consideration in future releases.
You have 3 options for providing feedback:
Vote for an existing Idea. The popularity of an Idea helps us understand its importance to our users.
Comment on an existing Idea. We want to hear your unique point of view.
Add a new Idea. If no existing Idea describes what you would like, add a new one!
When you Vote, Comment, or Add an idea you will also be subscribed to that Idea and will receive status updates. Please note that we may merge or rename Ideas for clarity. Thank you for your support and feedback, it is always appreciated!
Thank you for logging this idea (I retitled it to better reflect the suggestion). The current rendering method used for custom profiles used in STAAD.Pro is defined in the GENERAL UPT definition. This is based on the profile being described as a single closed profile. This is identified in the UPT by PROFILE POINTS.
With Shape Editor, the profile can be defined with a number of discrete parts which can be grouped.
For example the tool that can define a standard wide flange profile is created from multiple parts for the flanges web and rolling radii and grouped to give the overall properties.
If you define a profile with a single object/ boundary and use that to create a GENERAL UPT profile, this will include the profile points and is rendered in STAAD.Pro. For other conditions some thought is needed
Possible solutions include
1) During the export from Shape Editor, determine the outer boundary of the shape and use that to map to the profile points in the GENERAL PROFILE POINTS. This might work for many common situations, but suspect that where the profile has been defined in multiple discrete shapes may result in odd looking renders, e.g. a double angles
2) Extend the definition of PROFILE POINTS in the STAAD.Pro GENERAL UPT definition to support multiple boundaries. e.g.
TYPE GENERAL
NAME
A, D, TD, B, TB, IZ, IY, IX, SZ, SY, AY, AZ, PZ, PY, HSS, DEE
PROFILES_POINTS
BOUNDARY 1
X1, Y1 X2, Y2 X3, Y3 ....
BOUNDARY 2
X1, Y1 X2, Y2 X3, Y3 ....
...
3) Create a new UPT profile type say COMPLEX that is an aggregation of individual GENERAL profiles which contains the actual properties for the analysis and the profiles it refers to are simply there for rendering. The definition would be
TYPE COMPLEX
NAME
A, D, TD, B, TB, IZ, IY, IX, SZ, SY, AY, AZ, PZ, PY, HSS, DEE
PROFILES
GENERAL UPT NAME1
GENREAL UPT NAME2
...
The analysis engine would process this the same as a GENERAL PROFILE
The GUI would render the shape using the list of GEENRAL UPT names
Shape Editor would be extended to support export of COMPLEX shapes. Each part would be exported as a GENERAL SHAPE and the overall as a COMPLEX shape that refers to the parts.
I suspect that option 2 might be the most straight forward, but would like to have your thoughts