Hi,
I am using staad pro first time for cold form steel design. I could not figure out how unity ratio is more than 1.5 for a particular member. see below scree shots and attached file.
Design strength Mz=16.5 KN-m ; Critical Load = 95.99 KN-m How Unity Ratio is >>1.5. Many Thanks in advance.
I HAVE A G+3 CIRCULAR BUILDING OF 40 METER CLEAR SPAN DIAMETER. THE CIRCULAR SLAB OF THE THIRD FLOOR IS A SLOPED ONE, BUT NOW WHEN I AM TRYING TO ASSIGN THE LOAD BY GROUPING METHOD ITS NOT TAKING THE ASSIGNED LOAD. IS THERE ANYONE WHO CAN GUIDE ME THROUGH IT??
THE SLOPE SLAB IS BENEATH THE DOME
-WITH REGARDS
NISHIMON
I referred example 28 of American examples to calculate frequency. I gave cut off mode shape 100. In the output, I found that the frequency increases with each mode. I am confused which mode should be considered for obtaining natural frequency? I need to restrict the natural frequency to keep it away from RPM of the equipment.
Hi All,
In Bentley solution Staad RCDC is very powerfull tool to design and 2D detailing concrete elements. Anyone have idea and experience on link Staad Pro or RCDC to ProStructures ( rebar )? Please add your opinion at this topic!
Thanks
|
In an effort to find a more efficient way in aggregating the output, I decided to give the RC interactive designer a try and compare it with the batch mode design results. Attached is a screenshot of the result from the batch mode vs the RC designer and you can tell that the results are different although both detected the same governing combination for designing the column. Where could the problem be? Which is the correct result knowing that I used aci-318 2005 in both modes and unified the parameters?
Dear Sir,
The members which are defined as truss also gives the warning of MOMENT AMPLIFICATION FACTORS KY OR KZ IS GREATER THAN 1.4.
But the code specifies the check as per 9.3.2.2 for combined bending and axial compression case. As the bending moment in the truss member is 0, why does STAAD throw this warning.
How to address these warnings? The members still show as pass in the outpur. Is it ok to ignore these warnings?
Dear All,
I am a tapered built-up section in Staad. I am wondering the way Staad calculates the radius of gyration of taper section. For a physical taper section, the radius of gyration should be considered as an average of the radius of gyration at the start and end of the section, wherein Staad is considering the radius of gyration at the less depth only. Please clarify.
Good day, I am new in staad, can someone help me with my question?
my question is how to get the maximum moments and deflection of each beams in staad? what load cases to be consider? I am planning to design beams manually and I am planning to get the maximum moments using staad. is it possible?
I will really appreciate any of your answers/suggestions. thank you very much!
|
I once came across renaming a group of columns so that the group name will be reflected on the dxf plan wherever an instance of that group occurs. Unfortunately I don't know how I did it the first time, I know that I had access to edit the group name through the "Edit column description/prefix" option where the "Type" in the table showed GRP as for editing the group name, but now it only show COL for editing the prefix of each column in the group.
Any idea?
When I try to "return to analytical modeling" from the physical modeller I get the following error: "Unrecognized Guid format." All I changed from the last time I updated the analytical model is some member releases. How can I resolve this error?
Dear all,
i am trying to model 3D plate model with the application of compression springs both at base and side walls and have some doubts regarding that:
1) Initially i was trying to apply "load combination" command to add the respective loads but after going through staad literature i found that "repeat loads" were to be used in this case.
Upon the application of repeat loads i noticed close to 50% decrease in the bending moment . Isn't this decrease too large or am i making some mistake?
2) In order to reduce bending moments, i applied joints using the release option in plate specifications for the whole structure. But to my dismay, i see no perceptible decrease in the maximum bending moment (rather an increase in bending moments?? why is this happening?
3) Also regarding application of release, i am confused about direction in which they are to be applied. Figures below show 2 directions in which releases can be applied, which one of them is correct?
OR 
4) Also, i would need some advice on the support conditions to be employed. Should i use fix boundary conditions at corners of base (with intermediate nodes being attached to spring) or should i go for Pinned/fixed boundary condition on top of side wall as shown below
Hi,
I have the following questions on Staad Advanced Foundation:
1.For bearing capacity checks does the software use the Linear Soil pressure method or the Reduced Effective Area method.
2.Is there an option to select granular or cohesive soil as the checks differs.
3.Does the software allow to set the percentage of base compression.
4.Is there allowable bearing capacity input for multiple load cases i.e. operating combinations, seismic combinations...
Thank you
I have a question regarding pile supported mat foundations. In the Help file there is a this tip:
Tip: For rigid foundations (i.e., isolated, combined, pilecap, etc.) the supported nodes in the STAAD.Pro model should be oriented to the top of the footing. However, for mat foundations, the supported nodes in the STAAD.Pro model should be modeled at the bottom of the footing.
When modeling from STAA.Pro import Y elevation is at 0, when creating my pile supported mat for a 4'-0" thick mat my Y elevation should be -4'-0". Am I assuming correctly that for my piles, especially fixed head piles, that the embedment depth of 6" or 12" that their Y elevation would be -3'-6" or -3'-0" respectively to get correct pile reactions and moment in the pile head?
Thanks,
Russ
I modeled two identical beams with the same distributed load. Each beam has a short vertical member connected at each end. The only difference is one beam is a single element. The other one is divided into 10 segments. For static linear analysis, I get the same results for each beam as would be expected. However, when I run a nonlinear analysis, the beam with only one segment gets wildly incorrect values. Here's a screen shot of the Mz bending moments. They should be the same but notice how different they are.
I reported this as a bug but the service ticket was closed. I understand that breaking an element up into more parts can give better nonlinear results but I wouldn't have expected this large of a difference. Also, the loads are such that the beams stay in the linear range. You can look at the deflection of the center node of the subdivided beam and see that it behaves linearly.
I've attached the .std file communities.bentley.com/.../Nonlinear-Test.std so others can try this. Any thoughts on what is happening here?
I am using SFA Connect Edition version 8.4.0.21 and am getting the an error when I am trying to generate the moment envelope for a mat foundation. The error states that no load case associated to the current job is defined as Ultimate Loading. I have load combinations that are set as Ultimate so I don't understand why I am getting this error. See the attached picture. I have also attached my SFA file.communities.bentley.com/.../NorthEgressStair_5F00_90_5F00_foundation.sfa
Dear all,
i am trying to model 3D plate model with the application of compression springs both at base and side walls and have some doubts regarding that:
1) Initially i was trying to apply "load combination" command to add the respective loads but after going through staad literature i found that "repeat loads" were to be used in this case.
Upon the application of repeat loads i noticed close to 50% decrease in the bending moment . Isn't this decrease too large or am i making some mistake?
2) In order to reduce bending moments, i applied joints using the release option in plate specifications for the whole structure. But to my dismay, i see no perceptible decrease in the maximum bending moment (rather an increase in bending moments?? why is this happening?
3) Also regarding application of release, i am confused about direction in which they are to be applied. Figures below show 2 directions in which releases can be applied, which one of them is correct?
OR 
4) Also, i would need some advice on the support conditions to be employed. Should i use fix boundary conditions at corners of base (with intermediate nodes being attached to spring) or should i go for Pinned/fixed boundary condition on top of side wall as shown below
Solución para Bases de Columnas:
Mi pregunta es como modelar una Articulación mediante bulón y charnela,,, y si con ram connection existe el modo de diseñar este tipo de solución para bases articuladas,,, saludos y gracias de antemano por la ayuda
