SI units (N, mm, MPa) Issue and Values for cursor points not shown

[eNgiNeerTr58]

Hello wcfRobert,

First of all, I would like to thank you for sharing fkit. I find it an excellent, functional, and inspiring toolkit – it really makes working with fibers and section analysis much easier and enjoyable.

While experimenting with the package, I noticed that when working with N–mm units, some results and graphs don’t appear correctly. In particular, the 3D visualizations seem distorted.

I was wondering:

Have you ever tested fkit specifically with N–mm units?

Did you encounter similar issues, or perhaps already compare results against reference data?

If you have previously tried this, would it be possible to share a sample file or example that demonstrates correct usage with N–mm units?

And also in the 3D plot graph cursor points values not shown. Just kindly inform you

I really appreciate your work and would be glad for any guidance you can provide.

Best regards,

[wcfrobert]

Hi eNgiNeerTr58, thanks for the kind feedback. Glad you find fiber kit useful.

To be honest, I've mostly developed fiberkit with kip-in (imperial) units, focusing my attention on the US practice. For the first few versions of fiber kit, I was just trying to make the damn thing work. Now that the tool is more stable, I think it's time for me to implement a more robust unit handling system.

SI unit should work numerically in the backend, but the visualization can be quite clunky (or straight up non-functional). This is because SI and imperial units are often orders of magnitude different, so the scaling in Plotly or Matplotlib has to be dynamically adjusted.

It seems like support for SI unit is in high demand, so I intend to add full support for it by the end of this year. I would like to come up with some elegant interface class to do this stuff. For now, I would do everything in (kip) and (inches). I know doing the unit conversions is not ideal, but I think that's the best approach until I fully implement SI unit support.

[eNgiNeerTr58]

Hi eNgiNeerTr58, thanks for the kind feedback. Glad you find fiber kit useful.

To be honest, I've mostly developed fiberkit with kip-in (imperial) units, focusing my attention on the US practice. For the first few versions of fiber kit, I was just trying to make the damn thing work. Now that the tool is more stable, I think it's time for me to implement a more robust unit handling system.

SI unit should work numerically in the backend, but the visualization can be quite clunky (or straight up non-functional). This is because SI and imperial units are often orders of magnitude different, so the scaling in Plotly or Matplotlib has to be dynamically adjusted.

It seems like support for SI unit is in high demand, so I intend to add full support for it by the end of this year. I would like to come up with some elegant interface class to do this stuff. For now, I would do everything in (kip) and (inches). I know doing the unit conversions is not ideal, but I think that's the best approach until I fully implement SI unit support.

Thank you again for your response and the clarifications regarding the unit system. It makes perfect sense and I fully understand the current focus on US practice.

I would also like to share some brief feedback from my side:

I compared the results with XTRACT, and I am glad to say that I obtained very similar outputs, which increases my confidence in fiberkit.

Regarding unconfined concrete, it might be useful to consider whether the analysis should be limited by this behavior or not.

For moment–curvature (MK) analysis, having the possibility to set a phi_target is really nice. However, it could be even better if the user had the option to decide whether the analysis should stop automatically when, for example, the concrete fails or the bottom rebar fails.

Currently the program provides the raw results directly, which is excellent. But in addition, it might be very useful to also have an automatically idealized version of the results.

One more idea: in the case of confined concrete, maybe the effective area could be defined by the outer boundary of the reinforcement cage instead of the bar centers. I am sure you have already thought about this, and I know it might be more challenging to implement, but I just wanted to share the idea.

At the moment, I export the data and prepare those post–processings myself, but I thought it might be valuable to share these ideas for potential future development.

Again, thank you very much for this great tool — it is really impressive and inspiring.

Best regards,