https://www.dropbox.com/s/ufrnueskr3ixrhb/SHADE%20STRUCTURE.std?dl=0
Hello everyone,
I'm trying to design this shade structure, but i keep getting these errors and warnings, can someone please help so I can finish the design process ?
The STAAD version that I'm using is (STAAD.Pro V8i SS5)
P.S: I have the choice to use BS5950 or AISC whichever works !
i just want to add wind loads on my flare stack tower as per API-4F. Total Height 25 meter.Kindly advice how to add in oblique wind loads.
Hello,
I am designing welded moment joints of one of the model according to EN 1993-1-8 (9 single load cases and 13 load combn from 9 load cases) and realized a strange problem.
for 1st joint RAM used all loads correctly for the connection .
When I went to 2nd joint, RAM retained the same values of load but only geometry was correct (column and beam).
also for 2nd joint when I sorted only load combinations from load envelope window, now it retained the load values but not of the corresponding load cases or combinations, but in sequence in which load values for 1st joint were arranged.
i.e., load values of single load cases of 1st joint were attached to load values of 2nd joint load combinations.
It seem that only values were retained and their starting name(load case or combn) was replaced by load combinations.
This is not happening only for any particular file, but in all files.
What is the problem?
Need to sort it as early as possible.
Regards,
Vishal
Hi,
Could you please tell me what value we enter for F5 (Thickness of top flange) and F7 (Thickness of bottom flange) when modeling a tapered rectangular concrete beam?
Thank you.
Hello,
I have doubts in moment joint designed according to EN 1993-1-8.
For moment joint beam connected to flange of column, how does the min limit for weld size is decided in weld section?
there is no reference mentioned in front of this clause in joint report.
how it is calculated?
Also, weld design check of bottom and top flanges as per design report is calculated on the basis of 'weld length'. What is weld length?
Is it (2*flange width - 2*root radius - thk of web)???
If I am not wrong, SCI book quotes that when weld throat is less than full strength, design of joint shall done on the basis of beff i.e., effective width of plate calculated as per EN 1993-1-8, 4.10(2) or 4.10(4).
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards,
Vishal
Hi Everyone,
I have the following structure modeled in STAAD and evaluated using ASCE 10-97. After reviewing some of the results, the utilization ratios are not in agreement with the hand calculations based on the forces being applied. I concentrate on member 881 which has an utilization of 24.5 which makes no sense. Please advice if I have input something wrong in the design component.
CODE ASCE 1997
FYLD 4752 MEMB 881
UNB 7.8 MEMB 881
UNT 7.8 MEMB 881
MAIN 5 MEMB 881
LEG 0 MEMB 881
SSY 1 ALL
SSZ 1 ALL
NHL 0 MEMB 881
TRACK 3 MEMB 881
CHECK CODE MEMB 881
UNIT INCHES KIP
LOAD LIST 20
PRINT MEMBER FORCES GLOBAL LIST 881
SECTION 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 MEMB 881
PRINT MEMBER SECTION FORCES LIST 881
PRINT MEMBER STRESSES LIST 881
FINISH
ALL UNITS ARE - KIP FEET (UNLESS OTHERWISE Noted)
MEMBER TABLE RESULT/ CRITICAL COND/ RATIO/ LOADING/
FX MY MZ LOCATION
=======================================================================
* 881 ST L25253 (AISC SECTIONS)
FAIL ASCE 3.12-1 24.572 20
6.59 C 0.04 0.66 3.89
AXIAL CAPACITY OF SECTION = 9.422
EULER CAPACITIES - Y AXIS, Z AXIS = 29.047, 6.860
MOMENT CAPACITY - Y AXIS = 1.204
MOMENT CAPACITY - Z AXIS = 0.695
BOLT CAPACITY = 11.421 NO OF BOLTS = 1 NET SECT. FACTOR = 1.000
SHEAR CAPACITY/ACTUAL SHEAR - Y AXIS = 5.997, 0.000
SHEAR CAPACITY/ACTUAL SHEAR - Z AXIS = 5.997, 0.000
ACTUAL/ALLOWABLE SLENDERNESS RATIOS = 165.444, 250.000
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
************** END OF TABULATED RESULT OF DESIGN **************
2869. UNIT INCHES KIP
2870. LOAD LIST 20
2871. PRINT MEMBER FORCES GLOBAL LIST 881
STAAD SPACE -- PAGE NO. 346
MEMBER END FORCES STRUCTURE TYPE = SPACE
-----------------
ALL UNITS ARE -- KIP INCH (GLOBAL)
MEMBER LOAD JT FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
881 20 230 -0.03 0.00 6.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
232 -0.03 0.00 -6.59 0.00 0.00 -0.00
************** END OF LATEST ANALYSIS RESULT **************
2872. SECTION 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 MEMB 881
2873. PRINT MEMBER SECTION FORCES LIST 881
STAAD SPACE -- PAGE NO. 347
MEMBER FORCES AT INTERMEDIATE SECTIONS
--------------------------------------
ALL UNITS ARE -- KIP INCH
MEMB LOAD SEC AXIAL SHEAR-Y SHEAR-Z MOM-Y MOM-Z
881 20 0.25 6.59 -0.01 0.01 0.43 0.43
0.50 6.59 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57
0.75 6.59 0.01 -0.01 0.43 0.43
************** END OF LATEST ANALYSIS RESULT **************
2874. PRINT MEMBER STRESSES LIST 881
STAAD SPACE -- PAGE NO. 348
MEMBER STRESSES
---------------
ALL UNITS ARE KIP /SQ INCH
MEMB LD SECT AXIAL BEND-Y BEND-Z COMBINED SHEAR-Y SHEAR-Z
881 20 .0 7.3 C 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.1 0.1
0.25 7.3 C 0.9 1.9 9.7 0.0 0.0
0.50 7.3 C 1.2 2.6 10.5 0.0 0.0
0.75 7.3 C 0.9 1.9 9.7 0.0 0.0
1.0 7.3 C 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.1 0.1
************** END OF LATEST ANALYSIS RESULT **************
Hi
I am running a scenario for a particular year with pattern, demand and the model include 4 pump and 4 tower. I have been getting very high pressure (psi's) and hydraulic grades (ft) when I am changing the the scenario from steady state to 24 Hr EPS
Hi,
I just like to ask if there is a way how to increase the visual symbol of member releases in the model of staad.
thanks.
I know that a line support is subdivided in point supports at plate element nodes, therefore we get point reactions at each node (single reaction at the end nodes and double reaction at each internal node), whereas with the wall element we get only a single reaction.
In the attached example I modeled 4 one way slabs:
top left: 300mm thick one-way slab, 8m span, 1m width, line supports at each end (vertical support only)
top right: 300mm thick one-way slab, 8m span, 1m width, 200 thick wall (no fixities, compressible)
btm left: 300mm thick one-way slab, 8m span, 5m width, line supports at each end (vertical support only)
btm right: 300mm thick one-way slab, 8m span, 5m width, 200 thick wall (no fixities, compressible)
I am after a clarification about the comments below:
1 - the two 1m wide slabs give the save deflection (Max service 7.08 vs 7.1; Long Term Factored Elastic 33.6 vs 33.7), whereas the 5m wide give a difference of 7% (Max service 7.52 vs 7.05; ; Long Term Factored Elastic 36.3 vs 33.5).
2 - The 1m wide slabs line support give quite different DL reactions: If I sum all the point loads I get 258kN, whereas I get only 33.2kN reaction from the wall. From a simple simply supported beam analysis, the reaction should be 33.2kN which is in line with the wall support. Why the weird reactions for the line support?
Thanks
HI ALL,
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE GRID IN THE STRUCTURE THE MOMENT ALONG Z DIRECTION COMES OUT TO BE 8.60 FOR MEMBER NO 495 AND I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY PLEASE SUGGEST SOME SOLUTIONS AND PLEASE CORRECT ME ON MY MISTAKES
Hello all,
For any of you that might be interested to know how you can design complex connections that are not covered by the codes, you are more than welcome to follow our webinar tomorrow for IDEA StatiCa, a unique software that links with STAAD.Pro, and is able to design any joint configuration without any limitations in the number of members, cross sections, eccentricities, loading, etc.
For more info on IDEA StatiCa, visit www.ideastatica.uk
(Please visit the site to view this video)
Just register for free here: https://www.ideastatica.com/webinars/connection-wednesdays-july-26th/
Hi All,
I am currently having difficulty creating a joint in RAM Connection between the top flange of a beam and a column.
In my model they are connected via a Master/Slave but I think this maybe causing the problem. Would it be more appropriate to connect the beam and column via a rigid link that has a high E value and zero density, then attempt to create joints at said location?
Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Ross
When attempting to run code check of steel in RAM Frame module, RAM crashes. Computer prompts "RAMContainer MFC Application has stopped working"
Staad Pro version: v8i SS6 20.07.11.90
OS: Windows 7 64 bit
Processor: Intel Core i5-4310M CPU @ 2.70GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Model summary: physical member # 21
Time taken (for code check ONLY): 55 minutes
LOG file and input file are attached.
Please advise how to improve the performance.(Please visit the site to view this file)(Please visit the site to view this file)
Dear sir,
What should be the procedure to assign seismic weight as reference load? What is the benefit of defining mass as seismic load and Joint weight as seismic load
Question: I have analyzed my model in Staad.pro and observed that it displays the instability warnings.
Answer: Since solid elements by their basic nature have no rotational degrees of freedom at their nodes, so there will be no rotational
stiffness at that node.
You can tackle this problem in 2 ways :
1) Have dummy beams which flare out from the base of the column to other corner nodes on the solid elements.
The moment at the base of the column will hence be transmitted to the other nodes of the solid as axial and shear forces.
The diagram below illustrates this method.
2) Have a dummy member (or members) extending into the solids. The diagram below illustrates this method.
This method has the limitation in that the bottom of those members may be unstable to twisting about their
longitudinal axis unless there is an alternative mechanism to prevent that. If there is no moment acting along that
unstable degree of freedom, you may ignore the warning.
Finally, you can check if the applied loads are in equilibrium with support reactions, you may consider the zero stiffness
warning messages harmless, and ignore them.
Dear Sir,
The calculated buckling moment resistance in STAAD with C1=1 as per Euro code is less than the actual calculated buckling resistance and compared with Blue book capacity. Please find attached comparsion for your quick review. Kindly let me know the possibility in STAAD to get the similar value as per the calculation and Blue book capacity.
Please note that the STAAD Pro version 20.07.11.70 is used for the calculation.
Hope the given information will be sufficient for you to verify if not please let me know.
Thanks,
Best Regards,
Mahendran Jegadeesan
(Please visit the site to view this file)
In a recent model that I developed I found an issues with the program's reported unity ratios when using CB values and AISC 2010 design function. When you have an assigned CB>1.0 or the program computed values CB=0, the unity ratio reported from equation H1-2 is very low. For example, take the W18X40 beam below (see output below) with a Pcy=74.9kips, Pc=26.7kips, and Mr=122.9k-ft, Mcx=211.3k-ft. The Mcx of 211.3k-ft is based on a program computed Cb=2.272. The program is reported that the unity ratio with these loads is 0.538 which I understand comes from equation H1-2 as follows:
Pr/Pcy*(1.5-0.5*Pr/Pcy) + (Mrx/(CB*Mcx))^2
26.7/74.9*(1.5-0.5*26.7/74.9) + (122.9/(2.272*211.3)^2 = 0.538
However, based on how read the definitions under H1-2 in AISC 360-10 I believe this is an error! Mcx should be the available lateral torsional buckling strength for strong axis flexure determined in accordance with Chapter F USING CB = 1.0.
Therefore the correct form of this interaction equation should have the Mcx term = 93k-ft not 211.3k-ft
26.7/74.9*(1.5-0.5*26.7/74.9) + (122.9/(2.272*93)^2 = 0.81
Please let me know if anyone else has seen or experienced this or if i am misunderstanding the implementation of equation H1-2?
-------------------- START OF DESIGN OUTPUT OF MEMBER 234 --------------------
MEMBER NO: 234 CRITICAL RATIO: 0.633(PASS) LOAD: 55
LOCATION (ft):20.00 CONDITION: Eq. H1-1b
SECTION: W18X40 (AISC SECTIONS)
UNIT: KIP FEET
STRENGTH CHECKS:
CRITICAL RATIO: 0.633(PASS) LOAD CASE: 55 LOCATION (ft):20.00 CONDITION: Eq. H1-1b
DESIGN FORCES: Fx: 22.90(T) Fy: -14.40 Fz: 0.00
Mx: 8.33E-04 My: -6.76E-03 Mz: 1.29E+02
SECTION PROPERTIES: AXX: 11.800 AYY: 6.316 AZZ: 5.638
SZZ: 68.380 SYY: 6.351 CW: 1441.528
IZZ: 612.000 IYY: 19.100 IXX: 0.810
MATERIAL PROPERTIES: FYLD: 50.000 FU: 60.000
ACTUAL MEMBER LENGTH(ft): 19.999
PARAMETERS: KX: 1.000 KY: 1.000
SLENDERNESS: ACTUAL SLENDERNESS RATIO: 188.641 LOAD: 40 LOC.(ft): 8.333
ALLOWABLE SLENDERNESS RATIO: 200.000
SECTION CLASS: FLANGE:/ l: lp: lr:
WEB:
COMPRESSION: Non-Slender 5.729 13.487 N/A
Slender 53.492 35.884 N/A
FLEXURE: Compact 5.729 9.152 24.083
Compact 53.492 90.553 137.274
TENSION: FORCE: CAPACITY: RATIO: CRITERIA: LOAD CASE: LOCATION(ft):
23.003 531.000 0.043 Eq. D2-1 59 0.000
COMPRESSION: FORCE: CAPACITY: RATIO: CRITERIA: LOAD CASE: LOCATION(ft):
MAJOR: 26.647 439.903 0.061 Sec. E1 56 0.000
MINOR: 26.647 74.912 0.356 Sec. E1 56 0.000
INTERMEDIATE: Ae: KL/r: Fcr: Fe: Pn:
MAJOR: 10.509 33.325 41.422 257.718 488.781
MINOR: 11.800 188.641 7.054 8.043 83.235
STAAD SPACE -- PAGE NO. 47
STAAD.PRO CODE CHECKING - (AISC-360-10-LRFD) v1.2
********************************************
ALL UNITS ARE - KIP INCH (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
FLEX TOR BUCK: FORCE: CAPACITY: RATIO: CRITERIA: LOAD CASE: LOCATION(ft):
26.647 234.951 0.113 Sec. E4 56 0.000
INTERMEDIATE: Ae: Fcr: Pn:
11.800 22.123 261.056
SHEAR: FORCE: CAPACITY: RATIO: CRITERIA: LOAD CASE: LOCATION(ft):
MAJOR: 0.005 170.525 0.000 Eq. G2-1 55 0.000
MINOR: -14.403 169.155 0.085 Eq. G2-1 55 19.999
INTERMEDIATE: Aw: Cv: Kv: h/tw: Vn:
MAJOR: 6.316 1.000 1.200 5.729 189.472
MINOR: 5.638 1.000 0.000 53.492 169.155
UNIT: KIP FEET
YIELDING: FORCE: CAPACITY: RATIO: CRITERIA: LOAD CASE: LOCATION(ft):
MAJOR: -1.29E+02 2.94E+02 0.439 Sec. F1 55 19.999
MINOR: -8.94E-03 3.75E+01 0.000 Sec. F1 64 19.999
INTERMEDIATE: Mnr: My: Cb: Lp: Lr: Lb:
MAJOR: 3.27E+02 0.00E+00 2.098 4.494 13.086 19.999
MINOR: 4.17E+01 0.00E+00 2.098 4.494 13.086 19.999
UNIT: KIP FEET
LAT TOR BUCK: FORCE: CAPACITY: RATIO: CRITERIA: LOAD CASE: LOCATION(ft):
MAJOR: -1.29E+02 2.11E+02 0.611 Sec. F1 55 19.999
INTERMEDIATE: Mn: Me: Cb: Lp: Lr: Lb:
MAJOR: 2.35E+02 0.00E+00 2.272 4.494 13.086 19.999
UNIT: KIP FEET
INTERACTION: RATIO: CRITERIA: LOAD CASE: LOCATION(ft):
FLEXURE COMP: 0.611 Eq. H1-1b 55 19.999
FLEXURE TENS: 0.633 Eq. H1-1b 55 19.999
INTERMEDIATE: Mcx: Mcy: Mrx: Mry: Pc: Pr:
FLEXURE COMP: 2.11E+02 3.75E+01 -1.29E+02 -6.76E-03 74.912 0.000
FLEXURE TENS: 2.11E+02 3.75E+01 -1.29E+02 -6.76E-03 531.000 22.897
UNIT: KIP FEET
INTERACTION: RATIO: CRITERIA: LOAD CASE: LOCATION(ft):
IN PLANE FLEX: 0.617 Eq. H1-1b 56 0.000
OUT PLANE FLEX: 0.538 Eq. H1-2 56 0.000
INTERMEDIATE: Mc: Mr: Pc: Pr:
IN PLANE FLEX: 4.40E+02 2.66E+01 209.587 -122.878
OUT PLANE FLEX: 7.49E+01 2.66E+01 209.587 -122.878
-------------------- END OF DESIGN OUTPUT OF MEMBER 234 --------------------
Hello all,
I'm trying to assign material to the beams in STAAD through VBA using the OpenSTAAD library. However, when I try to assign the material to the beam through objOpenSTAAD.Property.AssignBeamProperty 7, 1
I get the a Run Time error in Excel: "Run-time error '-214717851(80010105) Automation error The server threw an exception"
Does anyone know why this error would come about? I'm new to the OpenSTAAD library, so if anyone could shed insight on this problem, that'll be great.
My code is as follows:
BusType= "4.00PipeX40"
objOpenSTAAD.Property.CreatePipePropertyFromTable 1, BusType, 0, 0, 0
objOpenSTAAD.Property.SetMaterialID 1
For b = 0 To Sheet16.Range("E11")
j = Cells(b + 14, 6).Value
k = Cells(b + 14, 7).Value
objOpenSTAAD.Geometry.AddBeam j, k
'assign bus material
If Abs(k - j) > 1 Then
objOpenSTAAD.Property.AssignBeamProperty 7, 1
End If
Next b
