Clarification on Using TVAR and GVAX for Variable Thickness in SOFiMSHC

Hi everyone,

I’m modeling a composite bridge in SOFiMSHC. In AQUA, I defined my section as plate elements and used the TVAR option (template variables) to specify the flange thickness:
tvar ‘td’ val 30[mm]
tvar ‘tg’ val 20[mm]
Then, in SOFiMSHC, I used GVAX to define how the thickness should vary along the bridge length:
gaxv ‘J’ name ‘td’ s 7.4 v 30[mm] dv 0.0 type poly
[…]
gaxv ‘J’ name ‘td’ s 44.0 v 30[mm] dv 0.0 type poly

My question:

In Graphic and System Visualization, it seems the self-weight is calculated using only the default TVAR values (val), not the varying thickness defined with GVAX.
Where did I go wrong in my assumptions or input? Should the self-weight not automatically consider the variable thickness along the length?

Any advice or explanation on how to correctly model this so that the varying thickness is reflected in the self-weight would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance for your help!

Hello,

only the input of the TVAR records in program AQUA is not enough.
Using the TVAR you have to define a polygonal cross section in AQUA. Here e.g. the polygon points have to get the TVAR at their coordinate definitions.
An example for the input definition is aqua3_bridge.dat which is available in TEDDY under Examples → aqua → English .
You can also use the CABD concept in SOFiPLUS with the definitions of the TVAR at the axis and using the variables in the Cross Section Editor via the references.

An interpolation with TVAR is not possible for standard cross sections.

With kind regards
Sabine Fahrendholz
Senior Product Manager

Hi SabineF,
Thank you for your reply.
I should also mention that I created the composite section using plate elements, as shown below:

I believe I have modeled the section correctly by using the tvar option.

Do you have any further suggestions on how I can resolve my query?
I expected that the self-weight would reflect the modeled weight, including any thickness changes along the length, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

And what do you mean by ‘standard cross-section’?