(Please visit the site to view this file)
Please refer to highlighted beam shown in snapshot below in order to check with the attached std file.
↧
RE: STAADPRO PHYSICAL MEMBER PROBLEM
↧
RE: STAADPRO PHYSICAL MEMBER PROBLEM
[quote user="mark cabrera"]
(Please visit the site to view this file)
Please refer to highlighted beam shown in snapshot below in order to check with the attached std file.
[/quote]
↧
↧
DIFFERENCE IN BENDING MOMENT VALUE
Hi,
Could you please tell me why there is difference in max. bending moment value of beam no. 1 and what value we need to take as max. BM?
Please see the attached screenshot below.
↧
RE: STAADPRO PHYSICAL MEMBER PROBLEM
Your screenshots are not visible for some reasons. Please let us know the analytical member numbers from which you are trying to form a physical member. Thanks.
↧
concrete column design ec2
When calculating the slenderness of a concrete column RAM uses a value of 1.0 for Factor A. This seems to be a standard value as it does not change in any column design output. According to EC2 (5.8.3.1) when the value is unknown Factor A should equal 0.7. Is there a way to change this factor in RAM Concrete Column design?
↧
↧
RE: Ram Connection - Export to DXF
See below. The first image is what I see when I open the dxf file in AutoCAD. The second image is what I see when I rotate the file in AutoCAD, it appears to be 3D and this is what is causing the problem.
↧
RE: Ram Connection - Export to DXF
You are right. I never realized they were 3D. I still don't understand why you cannot edit it in AutoCAD and insert it into a Revit sheet.
↧
Ram Connection - Export to DXF
When exporting a ram connection detail into dxf format it is exported as a 3D model when I open it in Autocad. I'm trying to import this file into Revit and edit it from there, but it won't let me explode it because the file is in 3D. Is there a way to fix this?
Thanks
↧
RE: STAAD FOUNDATION ADVANCED DON'T SHOW THE RESULTS (ALL RESULTS ARE IN 0 VALUE)
Some new about file??
↧
↧
RE: STAAD Pro Multilinear Spring Supports
The displacement values entered should be actual displacements.
↧
STAAD Pro Multilinear Spring Supports
Dear Bentley Team,
I've question regarding multilinear spring supports, in order to assign the spring support I have to enter the displacement and spring stiffness values. The displacement values to be entered are actual displacements or proportional/relative to maximum displacement? In STAAD help following is defined;
UNIT …
MULTILINEAR SPRINGS
2 4 SPRINGS -1 40.0 -0.50 50.0 0.5 65.0
Is there a detailed example or exercise file in help files which would provide more clarity on this subject?
Thank you in advance.
↧
Nodes in Ram Elements do not display
Hi,
I just updated my windows and the nodes in my Ram model are not displayed anymore. I know there is an update for release 13.05. My however I have 13.3.1.124. Will the update fix work for me too? And how do I go about it. Thanks
↧
WAFFLE / RIBBED SLABS IN STAAD.Pro
Hi,
Does anyone know how to design a Waffle / Ribbed slab in STAAD.Pro?, or if there is any video available explaining how to do it?, any example?, In the R/C design module can be performed?
Right know I'm doing it with slab and beam elements.
Regards.
↧
↧
RE: Nodes in Ram Elements do not display
The same solution will work. So long as you are a current SELECT subscriber you can get the latest release and install it. The basics for installing are here:
- Fulfillment Center Software Download Instructions
For others who come across this post, see web page below for more details about this issue:
Updating to RAM Elements v13.05.00.227 will resolve the problem.
The only solution on older versions is to role back Windows.
↧
RE: RAM Frame distribution of wind loads in a rigid diaphragm accounting for changes in stiffness in shear walls caused by openings
1. Yes, as you can see from the wall mesh, the openings are considered and the walls have a reduced stiffness when there are openings modeled. A wall with openings deflects more than a wall without openings under the same loads.
2. Torsion on the system is a natural product of the finite element analysis (whether the diaphragm is rigid or not). You can add a Center of Rigidity load case and then show the location of the COR, but it's optional to do so. For more see:
A point about your test, if you have a three walled open system like the image below, and assuming the out-of-plane stiffness of the walls is neglected, then there is a single load path for Y direction loads parallel. Consequently all the load goes to that wall regardless of it's stiffness.
↧
RE: STAAD Pro Multilinear Spring Supports
Is there any example or further reference for this. Also, is it possible to check how much spring compresses due to applied load?
↧
RE: Ram Connection - Export to DXF
I could do that, I was just trying to figure out if there was a way to edit it from Revit which would've been more convenient. Thanks anyways.
↧
↧
RE: RAM Frame distribution of wind loads in a rigid diaphragm accounting for changes in stiffness in shear walls caused by openings
Figure 1: 3 walled model, reactions at base
Figure 2: Reactions at base of a 4 walled model
Figure 3: COR in 3 walled model and force case considered
Figure 4: COR and load case considered for 4 walled building
Figure 5: Roof of 3 walled structures with shears in each wall displayed
Thanks for your reply. I now understand that RAM FRAME should be taking into account the change in stiffness per its documentation. However, the results from my experimental model are still very confusing and contradictory. My models (3 walled and 4 walled) are shown in Figures 1 and 2 with their respective Ry reactions at the base for the Y-load case. The walls with openings are along line 1 and should take on lower shear than that of the solid walls on line 4. However, surprisingly, in Figure 1 the walls with openings take on more load than the walls without openings. In Figure 2, with a 4th wall, for some reason the model behaves as expected and the solid walls do indeed take on more load than the walls with openings.
Figure 5 shows the resulting shears in the shear walls at the roof due to a Y-dir wind load case. It is very concerning to me as it appears that RAM Frame simply split the diaphragm load up equally among the 2 y-dir. lateral resisting systems and did not account for their differences in stiffness.
My initial thought was that shear due to torsion may have induced the perfect amount of shear to make the resulting total shears equally on both sides. However, I have tried changing building dimensions and with 3 walls, the amount of shear induced still remains the same on both sides. Additionally, Figures 3 and 4 show that the COR x coordinate remains very similar for both cases.
Another odd note is that both models have higher deflections in the shear walls with openings than the shear walls without openings, which indicates to me that RAM frame is appropriately lowering the stiffness of the wall panels with openings.
↧
RE: RAM Frame distribution of wind loads in a rigid diaphragm accounting for changes in stiffness in shear walls caused by openings
I think you are on the right track with your comment about torsion, but think of it as an equilibrium check for moments about the z axis from the middle where the forces is applied like middle like so:
As soon as you introduce a fourth wall the assumption that Fy=0 is no longer true. Another way to put it is like so - the 3 walled system has nearly zero resistance to torsion, any amount of applied torsion would result in huge diaphragm rotations.
↧
RE: RAM Frame distribution of wind loads in a rigid diaphragm accounting for changes in stiffness in shear walls caused by openings
Seth, you neglected to take into account that the center of rigidity is offset from center of mass significantly as shown in Figures 3-4 above. Here are my sample equilibrium calcs for distribution of forces in a rigid diaphragm:
1. Solving for actual shear in each wall
∑Fy=V1+V2=0
Then this shear is apportioned via proportion of stiffness of the overall stiffness. Ultimately, the overall shear is resisted and equilibrium is satisfied.
2. Solving for additional shear induced by torsion
The center of rigidity (as shown in previous pictures) is very far to the right, towards the rigid wall so the load is offset and with a rigid diaphragm the assumption is that the shear walls must resist this load
Ex=71’-45’=26’
Ey=0
T=P*Ex
This torsion is then distributed according to stiffness as well. Each wall would take the same amount of shear induced by torsion in a differing direction to create the resisting moment necessary so that equilibrium is satisfied for torsion.
3. Total shear
Total shear= Actual Shear + Shear induced by torsion
I would not expect that to result in the same exact number for each member as each step of these computations accounted for distributing the shear based on stiffness of the members. Just in case, I have varied the building dimensions and still RAM is evenly dividing the shear force which indicates that it is not distributing the load according to relative stiffness and maybe that it is not accounting for torsion about the center of rigidity. Hence, my confusion and concern.
1. Solving for actual shear in each wall
∑Fy=V1+V2=0
Then this shear is apportioned via proportion of stiffness of the overall stiffness. Ultimately, the overall shear is resisted and equilibrium is satisfied.
2. Solving for additional shear induced by torsion
The center of rigidity (as shown in previous pictures) is very far to the right, towards the rigid wall so the load is offset and with a rigid diaphragm the assumption is that the shear walls must resist this load
Ex=71’-45’=26’
Ey=0
T=P*Ex
This torsion is then distributed according to stiffness as well. Each wall would take the same amount of shear induced by torsion in a differing direction to create the resisting moment necessary so that equilibrium is satisfied for torsion.
3. Total shear
Total shear= Actual Shear + Shear induced by torsion
I would not expect that to result in the same exact number for each member as each step of these computations accounted for distributing the shear based on stiffness of the members. Just in case, I have varied the building dimensions and still RAM is evenly dividing the shear force which indicates that it is not distributing the load according to relative stiffness and maybe that it is not accounting for torsion about the center of rigidity. Hence, my confusion and concern.
↧