Hi, when i try to model pt flat slab and using different concrete grade (40 for pt slab and 30 for column, wall and conventional beam) there shows an error inconsistent concrete. Is RAM concept cannot model in different concrete grade?
↧
ERROR: INCONSISTENT CONCRETE
↧
STAAD Error and warnings
Hello dears , I have the an error on 
model and some warnings please help me **ERROR: THE FREQUENCY IS LESS THAN 0.0001 FOR LOAD 1
↧
↧
Load is not being transferred to beams
In the attached model, some of the beams on level "Typ" are only being loaded with their self weight (see attached image). I have checked deck orientation and slab edges and even tried deleting the deck and applying a uniform one over the entire floor. This issue does not happen on level "3rd" although the framing is similar. No warnings appear in either the Modular or RAM Steel. I appreciate your help in finding out what I am overlooking. Thank you
↧
Illegal framing or missing slab edge detected for a beam
Hello everyone,
I have been getting an error saying "Illegal framing configuration or missing slab edge detected for a beam". The snaps are given below. The error appears to be in the region marked in red. The small space at the left of that beam is actually a small expansion joint(1') between the left and right building. However, to be conservative, I drew it as a continuous slab with the decking which I believe should be fine. The slab is defined over the entire perimeter and so I do not understand why it would give this error.
Could someone please help out. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Arunav
↧
SFA - Combined Footing - Pressures at corners are much lesser than soil bearing capacity
Hi,
sometimes the pressures at four corners tabulated in the calculation sheet are much lesser than soil bearing capacity (input). Why is that? In this instance, file attached, SBC input was 2 ksf and the max pressure at one corner was 1.59 ksf. I'm short of room for the footing hence needed the size as small as possible. Optimize footing size option doesn't work as it showed error, the footing size cannot be determined. When I increased the SBC to 3 ksf, got the footing size with max pressure 1.91 ksf. Please clarify.
Thanks.communities.bentley.com/.../Exxon_5F00_gangway-fdn_5F00_20181113.sfa
↧
↧
Gravity loads in RAM Frame (Steel beams and columns) much lesser than in RAM Steel Beam/Column?
communities.bentley.com/.../beam-571_5F00_Steel-beam-results.pdfcommunities.bentley.com/.../Column-22_5F00_SteelColumn-Results.pdfcommunities.bentley.com/.../beam-571_5F00_Frame.pdfcommunities.bentley.com/.../Frame-Results_5F00_column22.pdfcommunities.bentley.com/.../Frame-loads_5F00_Column22.pdf
Hello,
The gravity loads on my steel beams and columns (lateral members) in RAM Steel and RAM Column modules are right. They match the manual calculations. But the gravity loads for the same members in RAM FRAME module shows a much smaller value. I am not able to understand the reason behind this. I have attached the loads and results files of a typical beam and column got from both RAM Steel/Column and RAM Frame. You can clearly see the dead loads do not match.
Is there an explanation for the reduction in dead loads? I have mass loads selected under the general criteria under RAM Frame and all my mass loads are same as my dead loads (surface loads).
Thanks
Rahul Kannan
Structural EIT
↧
Response Spectrum Signed Results with CQC
When doing a response spectrum analysis can the results be signed using the "Signed" option when using CQC or is this limited to SRSS? See the picture below.
↧
STAAD foundation advanced error message "could not analyze foundation. Please check the generated .ANL file for details". What is the issue here?
This is the model imported from STAAD.Pro. I have followed all the steps from the tutorial videos and all the data seems to be imported correctly. Please help to identify what the problem is.
↧
find the attachment
well sir...
i've completed my project (shear wall ) with some errors and warning so could you please tell me how to solve this problem.communities.bentley.com/.../6428.shear-wall.std
↧
↧
RAM Structural System: Live load reduction
Does RAM SS consider all the stories where I have the unreduced live load for the calculation of the tributary area that is considered for the live load reduction? Design per ASCE 7-10.
↧
Nodal Displacements - RAM Frame
Is it possible to return the nodal displacements for a portion of the diaphragm that is not attached to a "frame" element? I'm wanting to look at diaphragm corner displacements for a torsional irregularity check, but my frames (walls in this case) do not necessarily correspond. I have one corner where my frames don't continue all the way to the roof (so i can't pull nodal displacements at the roof), and another corner where I don't actually have an element.
It would be great if I could assign a node (at each floor) at each corner of the diaphragm to view the drifts as that location.
↧
Loads Definition is gray out in Staad Pro
Dear friends,
I don't know if it is a bug in the new release of Staad Pro or if I am doing something wrong.
When I send a model from the Physical Model to the Analytical model the Loads Definition tab has its bottom grey out, see:
As you can see the option for "New", "Add" are grey out.
The icons on the top for load are also grey out:
I am running the last version of Staad Pro Connection with windows 10 Pro.
I don't have this problem in project without the physical model, see:
Thanks
Gustavo
↧
Staad Foundation Advance Error
I used Staad Foundation advance to design horizontal vessel foundation. I don't know why Staad shown error as per attached.
Please advise
↧
↧
Holiday home with TATA Housing Kolkata
tata housing in Kolkata was considered to be one of the cheapest Indian cities but its real estate scenario has gone for a complete makeover. It has been showing a marked improvement across all sectors of its realty industry i.e. residential, commercial and retail. It has long shed off the image of being a lazy city and is emerging as an effervescent city. With a multitude of multinational companies entering the city, a sudden increase in the number of potential property developers can be seen.
↧
STAAD FDN. for a combined strip footing of 94.5m when checked for part 35x8x0.6m combined strip footing for 6 cols.@5mc/c and 2.5m overhang showed OK results. But the same program for the entire strip of 94.5m shows depth to be insufficient.
STAAD FDN. for a combined strip footing of 94.5m when checked for part 35x8x0.6m combined strip footing for 6 cols.@5mc/c and 2.5m overhang showed OK results. But the same program for the entire strip of 94.5m shows depth to be insufficiencommunities.bentley.com/.../Main-Footing-Empty-Shed-Agartala_5F00_Combined.pdfcommunities.bentley.com/.../OPTION_7E00_1.PDFcommunities.bentley.com/.../OPTION_7E00_2.PDFcommunities.bentley.com/.../IOCLAG_7E00_1.STDt. Lot of problems at site do to this.
↧
Length of connection in knife plate
In HSS knife plate connection, the check of Tee stem tensile yielding takes the length of weld 12" even though the length of connection entered is 20". Please advise.
That's to say it does not consider any length entered more than 12" for HSS10x10x5/8, however, it does consider it in case I changed the HSS profile to a bigger one.
↧
INSTABILITY AT JOINT / VERY WEAK SPRING
Good day Sir and Maam, I am designing a lifting platform, however there is a warning that states that there is an instability at Joint 100 and 102. Any help will gladly appreciated. Thanks
STAAD SPACE
START JOB INFORMATION
JOB NAME LIFTING FRAME
JOB CLIENT DCDC
JOB PART LIFTINGPLATFORM
ENGINEER NAME JUN
ENGINEER DATE 11/6/2018
END JOB INFORMATION
INPUT WIDTH 79
UNIT METER KN
JOINT COORDINATES
100 0 0 0; 101 1.5 0 0; 102 3 0 0; 103 0 0 3; 104 1.5 0 3; 105 3 0 3;
106 0 0 6; 107 1.5 0 6; 108 3 0 6; 200 0 5.04 0; 201 1.5 5.04 0; 202 3 5.04 0;
203 0 5.04 3; 204 1.5 5.04 3; 205 3 5.04 3; 206 0 5.04 6; 207 1.5 5.04 6;
208 3 5.04 6; 300 1.5 11.04 3;
MEMBER INCIDENCES
100 200 100; 101 202 102; 105 206 106; 106 208 108; 200 300 200; 201 300 202;
204 300 206; 205 300 208; 1000 100 101; 1001 102 101; 1002 100 103;
1003 101 104; 1004 102 105; 1005 103 104; 1006 105 104; 1007 106 103;
1008 108 105; 1009 107 104; 1010 106 107; 1011 108 107; 2000 200 201;
2001 202 201; 2002 200 203; 2003 201 204; 2004 202 205; 2005 203 204;
2006 205 204; 2007 206 203; 2008 207 204; 2009 208 205; 2010 206 207;
2011 208 207;
DEFINE MATERIAL START
ISOTROPIC STEEL
E 2.05e+08
POISSON 0.3
DENSITY 76.8195
ALPHA 1.2e-05
DAMP 0.03
TYPE STEEL
STRENGTH FY 253200 FU 407800 RY 1.5 RT 1.2
ISOTROPIC DUMMY
E 2.05e+08
POISSON 0.3
ALPHA 1.2e-05
DAMP 0.03
G 7.88462e+07
TYPE STEEL
STRENGTH FY 253200 FU 407800 RY 1.5 RT 1.2
END DEFINE MATERIAL
MEMBER PROPERTY AMERICAN
1000 TO 1011 TABLE ST W10X33
2000 TO 2011 TABLE ST W4X13
MEMBER PROPERTY AMERICAN
100 101 105 106 200 201 204 205 PRIS YD 0.032
CONSTANTS
MATERIAL STEEL ALL
SUPPORTS
300 FIXED BUT FX FZ MX MY MZ
MEMBER CABLE
100 101 105 106 200 201 204 205 TENSION 1
MEMBER RELEASE
2003 2005 2006 2008 START MP 0.995
2003 2005 2006 2008 END MP 0.995
LOAD 1 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE DL
SELFWEIGHT Y -1
MEMBER LOAD
1000 TO 1011 UNI GY -16.01
LOAD COMB 101 1.4DL
1 1.4
PERFORM CABLE ANALYSIS BASIC SAGMINIMUM 0.7 STABILITY 5
LOAD LIST 1
PARAMETER 1
CODE AISC UNIFIED 2010
METHOD ASD
CHECK CODE MEMB 1000 TO 1011 2000 TO 2011
PARAMETER 2
CODE AISC UNIFIED 2010
STEEL MEMBER TAKE OFF LIST 1000 TO 1011 2000 TO 2011
LOAD LIST 101
FINISH
↧
↧
RAM Concept: Line load not completely on slab
Hey I'm getting an error for the line load not completely on slab. This is a mat foundation and I have varying thickness of mat but the surface elevation is the same for all hence the slab is continuous. The load is applied to the basement wall. The mat footing is supporting the basement wall in the model. Does anyone know how or what should I interpret from this error?
↧
Basic Frame Analysis - Fy Different
Hello,
I am trying to analyze a normal frame in STAAD in 2 different ways. They are exactly same except that I have an Fz release at 2 nodes in one of them. Please see attached PDF. As you can see I am getting different base Fy values. I don't understand how base Fy reactions are differing. Can someone please explain.
Thanks
communities.bentley.com/.../Platform-Stair-Design.pdf
STAAD SPACE
START JOB INFORMATION
ENGINEER DATE 21-Aug-18
JOB NAME Harmon
JOB REF RTU-02 Platform
END JOB INFORMATION
INPUT WIDTH 79
UNIT INCHES POUND
JOINT COORDINATES
1 0 15 0; 2 0 15 -36; 9 45 15 0; 10 45 15 -36; 17 24 15 -66; 18 0 15 -66;
19 0 96 0; 23 45 96 0; 24 45 96 -36; 72 0 96 -36; 77 24 96 -36; 83 0 55.5 -51;
MEMBER INCIDENCES
1 1 19; 3 2 72; 9 9 23; 11 10 24; 13 19 23; 15 72 77; 16 24 77; 17 77 17;
18 72 83; 19 72 19; 21 23 24; 138 83 18;
DEFINE MATERIAL START
ISOTROPIC STEEL
E 2.9e+007
POISSON 0.3
DENSITY 0.283
ALPHA 6e-006
DAMP 0.03
TYPE STEEL
STRENGTH FY 36000 FU 58000 RY 1.5 RT 1.2
END DEFINE MATERIAL
MEMBER PROPERTY AMERICAN
1 3 9 11 13 15 16 19 21 TABLE ST HSST2X2X0.125
17 18 138 TABLE ST MC10X8
CONSTANTS
BETA 180 MEMB 17
MATERIAL STEEL ALL
UNIT FEET POUND
SUPPORTS
1 2 9 10 17 18 PINNED
19 23 FIXED BUT FX FY MX MY MZ
UNIT INCHES POUND
LOAD 1 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE DEAD
UNIT FEET POUND
MEMBER LOAD
21 UNI GY -17
19 UNI GY -17
17 18 138 UNI GY -15
LOAD 2 LOADTYPE Roof Live TITLE LIVE ROOF
MEMBER LOAD
17 18 138 UNI GY -100
PERFORM ANALYSIS
PARAMETER 1
CODE AISC UNIFIED 2010
METHOD ASD
FINISH
↧
Ram connection - Understanding the connection loads
Dear's,
I designed warehouse & few connection using ram connection. Kindly clarify/provide the below:
1. In my attached std file, if you refer the end plate connection (image attached as well). Why the moment value of column was not considered?
2. Why the moment value is not considered to designed the shear plate connection? it takes only axial & V.
3. Where I can find the user manual with working example & abbreviation details?
↧