Model 3 is incorrect. You didn’t connect the blocking properly to the sheathing and only created a “Rigid Link” from the studs to the two sheathing panels. So one sheathing panel was connected, while the other wasn’t connected to the stud. Also, the blocking isn’t properly connected to the horizontal studs (duplicate nodes). I’ve attached the corrected file below (though I can’t guarantee that everything is defined correctly, since adding it manually is very difficult). However, I have good news. Starting next week, we’ll be adding blocking members automatically, so you won’t have to add them manually much longer.
You should connect the line supports directly to the studs, not to the boundary lines of the Beam Panel surface (I’ve already changed this in the file).
The load transfer here is far from ideal. The load first has to pass from the stud through the Rigid Link into the sheathing. In this case, the sheathing must be properly connected. This is very inefficient. Blocking would be better.
I have updated the file in my previous post because I forgot to create the blockings on the small surface on the right side. Now it looks plausible (symmetric deformation)
In models 1 and 2, the generated OSB panels are currently supported (with staples or nails) on two sides, but not on all four sides (the image below is not accurate, but it does illustrate the difference). I wanted to know whether there was a better way to model these purlin/OSB diaphragms with spacers in RFEM.
Thank you for your reply. I’m looking forward to the update!
The change does indeed correct the singularity. The remaining tension and compression are due to the panel being too narrow. (The straight model is 22.87 m = 35 + 19*1.2 + 35). I’m not sure whether this is a physical phenomenon or a modeling artifact.
