Quantcast
Channel: RAM | STAAD Forum - Recent Threads
Viewing all 23543 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

RE: STAAD Problematic : linking DOF nodes

March 21, 2016, 9:26 am
$
0
0
This is not possible in STAAD.Pro. The closest you can get to it is by defining a master slave and defining the specific translation dof as a slaved direction. The rigid rotation would however be considered. If the rigid rotation is negligibly small, your translations will be very close.

I am curious as to what is the actual practical scenario that would require you to specify such a constraint.
↧
Search

RE: STAAD.Pro and Connection Client Issues?

March 21, 2016, 11:20 am
$
0
0
Thank you. I am in touch with our developers to see if they can provide some direction here.
↧
↧

RE: Shear wall analysis result disparity between 1. with end support and 2. continuous support

March 21, 2016, 2:21 pm
$
0
0


DSANJU,

Thanks for your time and input. I run all your model. The three models, Demo_1.std, Demo_2_plate.std and Demo_2_plate1.std gives same result at all four corners though there are intermediate support in model Demo_2_plate1.std. Model Demo_1_plate.std gives much more values mainly in Fx, Fy and Fz.In model Demo_2_plate1.std, four corner reaction should substantial decrease if it is supported at intermediate points throughout.

XXXXXXXXXXXX

I modified your model to find answer with reference to 5.14.1 , Notes 3. Is it  o.k. to configure cantilever surface element as  modified input with adding one floor and cantilever.

STAADSPACE

STARTJOBINFORMATION

ENGINEERDATE21-Mar-16

ENDJOBINFORMATION

INPUTWIDTH79

UNITMETERKN

JOINTCOORDINATES

1000;2400;3404;4004;50-30;64-30;74-34;80-34;

903.000150;103.99993.000150;113.99993.000153.9999;

1203.000153.9999;13005.5239;143.999905.5239;1503.000155.5239;

163.99993.000155.5239;

MEMBERINCIDENCES

112;223;334;441;515;626;737;848;919;10210;

11311;12412;131315;141416;15413;16314;17912;181215;

191011;201116;21910;221211;

SURFACEINCIDENCE

5148SURFACE1

19124SURFACE2

4121513SURFACE3

5126SURFACE4

19102SURFACE5

6237SURFACE6

210113SURFACE7

3111614SURFACE8

1234SURFACE9

9101112SURFACE10

DEFINEMATERIALSTART

ISOTROPICCONCRETE

E2.17185e+007

POISSON0.17

DENSITY23.5616

ALPHA1e-005

DAMP0.05

TYPECONCRETE

STRENGTHFCU27579

ENDDEFINEMATERIAL

MEMBERPROPERTYAMERICAN

1TO22PRISYD0.4ZD0.4

SURFACEPROPERTY

1TO10THICKNESS0.2

CONSTANTS

MATERIALCONCRETEALL

SURFACECONSTANTS

MATERIALCONCRETEALL

SUPPORTS

5TO6GENFIXED

6TO7GENFIXED

5TO8GENFIXED

LOAD1LOADTYPENone TITLELOADCASE1

SELFWEIGHTY-1

FLOORLOAD

YRANGE-13FLOAD-5GY

LOAD2LOADTYPENone TITLELOADCASE2

JOINTLOAD

14912FX4

PERFORMANALYSISPRINTSTATICSCHECK

FINISH

Xxxxxxxxxxx

Comments, feedback, suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks
Kanu Vaidya
kvaidya@aesser.com


↧

Shear wall analysis result disparity between 1. with end support and 2. continuous support

March 18, 2016, 10:03 am
$
0
0

Distance between support is 24.278 ft

End support result B

   Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Moment   
Node L/C Fx kip Fy kip Fz kip Mx kip-in My kip-in Mz kip-in Mz kip-in

9 7 DL + LL  70.649  125.272 -0.011  0.341  0.111  175.067 
21 7 DL + LL -70.944  128.966 -0.007  0.450 -0.084 -180.539 

Continuous support A

   Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Moment  
Node L/C Fx kip Fy kip Fz kip Mx kip-in My kip-in Mz kip-in

9 7 DL + LL  6.336  32.853 -0.011 -0.778  0.254  172.433

21 7 DL + LL -6.871  36.842 -0.010 -0.724 -0.236 -192.768

Ratio B/A

9 7 DL + LL   : 11.15  3.81  1          -0.43   -0.44   1.01
21 7 DL + LL: 10.32  3.5  0.7          -0.62  0.35  0.93

If any one design shear wall with generate support and without generate support, must have find disparity.

It will be appreciated if some body explain and how the continuous support results to be used for design. Generally we design for unit length of wall but these RESULTS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE FOR UNIT LENGTH OF WALL. (??????)

↧

RE: RAM Concept - Software Improvement Suggestions

March 21, 2016, 3:35 pm
$
0
0

Hi Josh, Seth, Jonathon,

I have another suggestion that could improve the capability of RAM Concept.  

I think the load balancing tool could potentially be expanded, using a 'design/tributary strip width methodology.' 

Having an existing tendon layout, one could select a tendon (along it's length) and using a load balancing approach attempt to profile the tendon to given % of DL (and maybe some LL if required). Boundary conditions would obviously be cover requirements for the duct. High points generally staying at top cover requirements - bottom profile points calculated from the load balancing. 

This 'trib width' could either be manually input or the program could work out the width based on the adjacent tendon spacing.

The beauty of 2D programs is that a direct load balancing calculation can take place and you can immediately see the correct tendon profile. For example full drape for for an end span and then the low points slightly higher for the first internal span.  

↧
↧

RE: STAAD.Pro V8i Seismic Definition (IBC 2006)

March 21, 2016, 6:35 pm
$
0
0
Nevermind. I was able to solve my own problem
Apparently, ELEMENT Concentrated Load denoted by:
ELEMENT LOAD
<element-list> PR GY 1.35 0 0
should be included as
JOINT WEIGHT
<node-list> WEIGHT 1.35
↧

RE: RAM Concept - Software Improvement Suggestions

March 21, 2016, 10:07 pm
$
0
0
There is some tendon optimization work being done that should make it into the next version. We are looking at more than just a balance load percentage (checking material costs on a variety of solutions to come up with an optimum layout), but those upcoming features might alleviate the need for balance load percentage by strip. If not, then we can certainly revisit this. Meanwhile, there is a strip wizard in Concept that can be used to select tendon quantities and drape if that's any help.
↧

RAM Concept - Software Improvement Suggestions

April 20, 2015, 4:48 pm
$
0
0

Hi Support Team, 

I have a few suggestions that I feel would benefit most RAM Concept users. 

1) It would be very handy to have an option to set the elevation of a tendon profile point to 'mid depth.' Similar to the other current options, a user would not have to continually changed this depth as concrete element depth changes. Almost all anchorages profile points will be mid depth (unless pan stressed). 

2) Currently the only way to model long term PT losses is to model 'manual' tendons by jacking them. I believe there should be the option to jack Tendon Parameters instead of using an 'effective force' method. These affects can be significant in long tendons and could have a great impact on design and deflections. 

3) In preliminary analysis, there could be analysis run time saved if the span segment cross sections could be determined based their length and %span. For example my code bases deflection calculations on cross sections at quarter points (section at both ends, middle and quarter points). I suppose an alternative to this would be to set the max division max really high and use the min division options. But the former suggestion would be based purely on span length. 

4) Is it possible for beams to be recognised as supports, similar to columns in that you don't need to manually specify a support width? Can become troublesome when changing beam widths, yet to span segment's first cross section won't change. 

5) Modelling tendons through steps, folds and other elevation changes can be very tricky, especially ensuring that you are maintaining the correct cover at all times. I wonder if there is scope to implement a tool (similar to the plot distribution tool), that could preview a section of the tendon profile along a particular 'cut' made by the user. This would no doubt assist in the 'sanity' checks of PT modelling and to make sure you won't be blowing the corner off a concrete step!

6) I've mentioned this previously, but keyboard hotkeys or shortcuts would be great for general modelling. Especially tools like select, move, stretch. 

If I think of any more I will post them here. 

Thanks for taking the time to consider these suggestions. 

Trent

↧
Search

RE: How to do in STAAD.Pro

March 21, 2016, 10:48 pm
↧
↧

RE: SP16.13330.2011 problem with design F.(44)

March 21, 2016, 11:55 pm
$
0
0
Hi Yaroslav,

Thank you for pointing to these (we also monitor other your related posts) - we're looking into this. Probably a better idea would be raising a Service Request(s) with corresponding attachments: appsnet.bentley.com/srmanager
↧

RE: Dead Load on Seismic Definition

March 22, 2016, 12:21 am
$
0
0
So please if I need to follow the 1st definition how I define a mass reference load case. may you guide me on that ?
↧

Dead Load on Seismic Definition

March 21, 2016, 3:57 am
$
0
0

Please confirm if I can use picture below for member load (dead load) definition on Seismic to be 

in define reference loads

or I have to follow picture below and add the member weight below the definition

Thanks in advance for your help.

↧

RE: Design of purlin

March 22, 2016, 12:24 am
$
0
0
also sir please tell me what parameters should i use, for the design, if i am using sag rods?
↧
↧

Design of purlin

March 21, 2016, 2:11 am
$
0
0

Any body please tell, why i am getting the utilization ratio as "1.#OI" while designing the Zed purlin in staad pro.

↧

Analytical Model View in 3D Ram Structural System

March 22, 2016, 12:51 am
$
0
0

Hi guys,


Is there a way to view Ram structural model in 3D analytical model only. If have kindly please help me out how.

↧
Search

Out of plane bending

March 22, 2016, 1:46 am
$
0
0

Hi! I would like to know which sort of loads are considered in designing the steel connections (beam - column) using RAM connection module, in particular if 'out of plane' forces are considered?

Thank you

Mustafa

↧

RE: How to analyse and design in Staad pro. for other the countries whose codes are not listed in Staad?

March 22, 2016, 10:30 am
$
0
0

What is it about Peru that is special? Do you have a particular building code or design code that is not in STAAD.pro? If so, you can always use another code like ASCE 7 for loads, AISC 360 for Steel Design, etc. If's it the use of Spanish, we don't have a localized version.

↧
↧

How to analyse and design in Staad pro. for other the countries whose codes are not listed in Staad?

March 22, 2016, 10:06 am
$
0
0

hello,

How to use Staad for the countries like Peru?

please help

↧

RE: wind loads on walls with varying heights in ram

March 22, 2016, 10:37 am
$
0
0

Regretfully our wind load application is fairly simplistic. The slope of the roof is not fully accounted for and the parapet is only a constant dimension per story. 

The RAM Frame - Wind Loads FAQ  clarifies these points. Ultimately, using User Defined Story forces (or nodal loads) is probably required for you case to be precise. 

↧

RE: How to model a corrugated steel plate

March 22, 2016, 10:59 am
$
0
0
First of all, if the purpose of modeling the corrugated plate is to account for it’s weight or to distribute a pressure loading applied on it, you may as well use floor loads for that without even modeling the plate. However if the purpose is to account for the stiffness due to the plate, you can model it using plate elements ( and NOT Surface elements ). Stiffness of plate elements can be controlled by varying either the plate element thickness or by defining/assigning a material with an appropriate E value. By doing so, if it is possible to represent the stiffness of the corrugated plate with a plate of equivalent uniform thickness, it would be simplest in terms of modeling. If you would like to do a detailed stress analysis of the corrugated plate, only then you will need to model it exactly. You will need to use a mesh of plates and model one segment and then do a translational repeat to generate the full plate. As you know, plate mesh can only be generated on a flat area. So you will need to generate the plate mesh in parts such that each time you are meshing on a particular plane.

I hope this offers some insight.
↧
Viewing all 23543 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>