I think it is your Structural Synchronizer version that is causing the issue. Can you please try uninstalling the one you have and install the more recent Structural Synchronizer Connect Edition (64-bit ) 10.00.01.06 ? I have the same in my machine and it seems to work fine with STAAD.Pro
↧
RE: Unable to create host MainForm
↧
Unable to create host MainForm
Hi,
kindly find the error message attached when I try to create ISM repository from staad pro v8i.
My version of staad and structural synchronizer is attached with for your reference.
However I am able to create ISM repository from staad foundation advance. Snap shot is attached for your reference.
Could to help me to find the reason and solution for this problem .
Thank you for your help and support.
↧
↧
RE: Assigning member sizes chosen by Select Member Command
I did use the Group command in order to greatly reduce the number of sections selected by the program. Otherwise it may chose a different cross section for each member in the model.
Thanks
Thanks
↧
RE: Assigning member sizes chosen by Select Member Command
Very Helpful. Thank You. This updated the section sizes automatically. Everything else I read stated that it had to be done manually. I have several thousand members in my model. Updating sections manually would be very time consuming on a model that size.
↧
Assigning member sizes chosen by Select Member Command
I have used the Select Member command to allow STAAD to choose member sizes in my model. How do I assign the member sizes it has chosen to the appropriate members. All of the selected member sizes that the program has chosen show up in the member properties box, but they are not assigned to any members. My model is rather large and it would be very difficult to assign them manually.
Thank You.
↧
↧
RE: INSTABILITY AT JOINT ## DIRECTION = MY, MX
Hi!
Thank you for the reply.
I was able to eliminate the instabilities thru adding FX and FZ in the master/slave spec (while not changing the truss members) thus, it is already
SLAVE FX FY FZ MASTER 33 JOINT 45, ...
May I ask if you also agree that I did the right action?
About partially releasing the braces, thank you for the link provided.
Will look into it.
Thank you for the reply.
I was able to eliminate the instabilities thru adding FX and FZ in the master/slave spec (while not changing the truss members) thus, it is already
SLAVE FX FY FZ MASTER 33 JOINT 45, ...
May I ask if you also agree that I did the right action?
About partially releasing the braces, thank you for the link provided.
Will look into it.
↧
RE: How can I connect two bracing members from the top flange of one girder to the bottom flange of another girder?
The only change I would suggest is that, at the intersections of the X braces ( like nodes 520, 521 etc. ) do not apply full MZ releases because with full MZ releases applied at both ends of these braces, these nodes will not have any ability to carry out of plane shears like say a load in the global Y. That is the reason why your static check is not being satisfied for the load 1. You may consider either taking out the release at the intersections or have partial moment releases in these members as opposed to full moment releases.
↧
How can I connect two bracing members from the top flange of one girder to the bottom flange of another girder?
In staad if one member has multiple bracing members connected at different components of that member (e.g flange, web etc) how can I assign those connections? Is it a viable option to use offset? Also, in case of offset members it is also not possible to connect members from one offset to another one since we are not getting any additional nodes for the offsets. If we use plates to form a girder then we won't be getting the forces & moments of that element, we would only be able to check the plate stress? Can anyone attach any sample models?
↧
RAM Concrete Beam: Significant Positive Moments at a Support
On the current project I'm working on, I have several continuous joist runs with significant positive moments at the supports. See below for an example:
The supports here are concrete girders. I know that with the use of FEM, the deformations of the girder will effect the analysis results of the joists it is supporting, but from this moment diagram it seems as if the girder (support 2) is offering almost no support. I know that in reality this is not what is expected to happen and I know that I'm missing out on what the negative moment demand would actually be at the support. According to this, I only need 0.15in2 of top reinforcement at the support, which I know can't be true. I've read through the Concrete Analysis and Concrete Beam Manuals and haven't found a solution. Is there some criteria or setting that I can toggle to more accurately model the behavior of this type of case?
For reference: The girder is 30x25 and ~30 feet long. The joists are 6x25 and spaced at 5.5 ft. This particular joist run location is pointed out by the green arrow:
↧
↧
RE: Box Culvert loading
I see that you have applied the vehicle load as a plate pressure load. If your intention is to apply a horizontal thrust of magnitude equal to 20% of the vertical load at each of these nodes, you may use notional load with a factor of 0.2. A modified file with a load case 13 added, is attached for your reference.
(Please visit the site to view this file)
↧
Box Culvert loading
Sir,
I am new to Staad pro.
I am modelling a rectangular box culvert in staad. I m using plate elements of .2m size. I have applied all the loadings except braking load (20% of vehicle load, as per IRC 6). Can anyone guide me in this. I have attached the model.
[View:/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/20.01-box-girder.std:940:0]
Thanks
↧
RE: INSTABILITY AT JOINT ## DIRECTION = MY, MX
What you did is appropriate.
↧
RE: RAM Concrete Beam: Significant Positive Moments at a Support
You could stiffen the girder, making it a deeper section or less cracked for example, to confirm it's just a matter of relative rigidity leading to this unexpected bending moment. Another useful thing to check is the deflected shape.
In the end you might want to take the more conservative top steel from an adjacent joist and apply it here just to be safe. I like the Process - Copy Design command for this (when the spans are all identical).
↧
↧
RE: RAM Concrete Beam: Significant Positive Moments at a Support
Thank you, Seth. I'll just roll with using the top steel from adjacent joists. That's what I have been doing. I just wanted to see if there was something I was missing.
Thanks again.
Thanks again.
↧
RE: RAM Concept - Punching Shear Question
Hi Seth,
I am using 6.01 version of RAM Concept but I still face this issue. I have a 6" and 9" slab passing over the columns and the punching audit check shows calculations (refer snip below) with average perimeter depth dom=6.141 inches (which is greater than 6"). Please let me know if I am missing anything.
Thanks,
↧
RE: RAM Concept - Punching Shear Question
Can one of you include a file that exhibits this behavior? Use the Secure File Upload link (instructions below left).
↧
RAM Concept - Punching Shear Question
Hi Seth, Karl,
I'm having a slight issue with the punching shear check for a tricky slab arrangement with many different Top Of Concrete levels and thicknesses. 1000 x 400 RC column with V* = 800 kN and Mv* = 200 kNm each direction. N40 concrete. AS3600 code.
Essentially the problem I'm having is the punching check isn't considering the larger thicknesses in the audit sections by only taking the smallest thickness of 160 (200 - 40mm cover). The program should be attempting to average out the different thickness in proportion to how much each thickness contributes to the shear perimeter?
One potential reason why the program may be having difficulty is that each slab segment and the column centroid share a common FEM node. But I moved the column slightly off this node and re-positioned and rechecked the punching shear calc yet the same issued occurred.
I've gone through the calc manually by hand and can see it's on the verge of not working, however it would be good if I can get the program to confirm this.
Thanks in advance for the help. Cheers
↧
↧
RE: STAAD.Pro V8i SS6 - How to activate/inactivate specific support points based on load case.
Please refer to the wiki below for the answer to your query
↧
STAAD.Pro V8i SS6 - How to activate/inactivate specific support points based on load case.
I am creating a model where a specific set of supports is active for specific set of load cases, but then other support points are active for a select portion of those load cases. Is there a way to do this without creating separate models?
It appears doable with the CHANGE command and a renaming of support points after that, but I can't tell graphically or in the results that the model is actually analyzed in this manner.
↧
SHEAR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN FOR SLAB IN STAAD PRO
Hello guys , I got a problem to deal with shear reinforcement design for slab in staad pro.. actually I want to design a slab of thickness of 900mm and for this thickness, theoretically there should be a shear reinforcement design. However I found that there is no shear reinforcement design for slab in staad pro .. could you guys help me fix this up . Thank you
↧