I have designed a concrete beam per EC2-2004 in STAAD.Pro.
But I have some query about the results.
I have noted the query in attachment.
[View:/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/1682.beam.std:940:0]
↧
STAAD results query about EC2-2004
↧
RE: Set of Elements beign split in two
You can try merging the properties using the method mentioned below:
↧
↧
RE: STAAD Issue：Exception[access violation]Raised! Aborting Analysis.....
Change the SET NL 900 to a smaller value, say SET NL 50 and the analysis should run fine.
↧
STAAD Issue：Exception[access violation]Raised! Aborting Analysis.....
When I perform analysis, there is a error:
Exception[access violation]Raised! Aborting Analysis.....
I have added the command MEMORY 120, but the error can't removed.
So, how to deal with this issue?
STAAD Version：20.07.09.31
[View:/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/Pipe-Rack.std:940:0]
↧
RE: Set of Elements beign split in two
I'll show you an example. In my code, I have a set of beams with some releases assigned:
2691 2693 2695 2697 2700 TO 2709 2715 2722 2726 2734 TO 2739 2744 2766 2767 -
2770 TO 2777 2780 TO 2783 2786 TO 2789 2794 2795 TO 2799 2803 2868 2871 -
2872 2878 2881 2882 2887 2888 2892 TO 2896 2898 2901 2902 2904 TO 2907 -
2909 2911 2914 2917 2921 2923 2927 START MY MZ
When I close the model, or process it (i.e. it’s saved) this set of beams is split in two like this:
2691 2693 2695 2697 2700 TO 2709 2715 2722 2726 2734 TO 2739 2744 2766 2767 -
2770 TO 2777 2780 TO 2783 2786 TO 2789 2794 START MY MZ
2795 TO 2799 2803 2868 2871 2872 2878 2881 2882 2887 2888 2892 TO 2896 2898 -
2901 2902 2904 TO 2907 2909 2911 2914 2917 2921 2923 2927 START MY MZ
It happens with member releases, member properties, loads, check code parameters…almost with everything.
Thanks.
David
↧
↧
RE: load cases grayed out
Thanks Seth. It worked but in order to get forces in moment frames I had to delete the parallel shear wall, otherwise the shear wall takes all the applied loads. Is there a way where I can distributed the loads equally between frames and shear wall.
↧
RE: load cases grayed out
Yes, if you are using a flexible or pseudo-flexible diaphragm then you can apply whatever load, or percentage of the load you like to each frame or wall. Use frame numbers in the pseudo-flexible case.
↧
RE: RAM Concept - doesn't show reactions on point springs under mat foundation
You have to use Standard Context. See this: 
↧
RAM Concept - doesn't show reactions on point springs under mat foundation
Hi,
I have modeled a piled raft with the piles modeled as point springs and soil with area springs. For some reason I can not get the results for the point springs as Plot settings - reactions - spring support option is blacked out.
Please advise the reason.
↧
↧
RE: Set of Elements beign split in two
Hi David,
This is a limitation in STAAD.Pro. Any LIST command can hold up to a certain number of entities. When the file is saved using the GUI, the commands are written in the command file in such a manner that this limit is not exceeded. If more than the permissible number of entities are found, the command is broken down into multiple commands. However the software is able to consider all the assignments correctly and this splitting of command does not have any bearing on the analysis/design results.
One of the inconveniences caused by this splitting is that there could be multiple references ( like say R1 , R2, R3 etc. for member properties ) created for the same property. The menu option Tools > Merge Properties can be used to merge such references.
↧
Set of Elements beign split in two
Hi,
Some sets of beams on my code are being split in two. For example, I have a given property assigned to a set of beams, and when I process the code or I close STAAD Pro, this set of beams becomes two sets of beams with that same property.
I guess it is a common and minor problem, so I hope I can get some feedback.
Thank you in advance for your help.
BR,
David
↧
RE: Deflection check on Pitched Roof & flat roof
The reason you are getting the deflection failures for the pitched portal is that, STAAD.Pro is connecting the nodes DJ1 and DJ2 by a straight line and calculating the deflections of the pitched member with respect to that line. You should not check deflections for a set of members unless ALL the analytical segments are in a single straight line. For example let us consider the members 371,386,24,395. The DJ1 is specified as 23 and DJ2 as 26. This would not work because members 371 and 386 are in one line but members 24 and 395 form a separate line which is at an inclination to the first line.
For these type of cases, I would suggest that you check the deflection manually. For example check the nodal displacement at the node 24 and compare that to your allowable value (of 22000/250=88mm).
↧
RE: Deflection check on Pitched Roof & flat roof
Thanks
↧
↧
Deflection check on Pitched Roof & flat roof
Dear ,
Currently I am working on the shed having dimension of ( L=26.5m, B=22m & H= 20.5m) .
I am facing Problem to check deflection for the roof member having length of 22 meter ( column to column) ,
I made two separate STAAD file , Difference are described below :
1) Sloped roof having angle of 5.7 degree (Aprox) , In STAAD the Sloped roof member shows failure in defection check.
2) Where i made second file that having flat roof member (i.e no slope at roof member) in which STAAD shows this member Pass in deflection check.
Why STAAD showing this result ?
For your reference i have attached STAAD files. [View:/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/STAAD-portal.std:940:0][View:/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/STAAD-portal_2800_-top-member-flat_2900_.std:940:0]
↧
RE: Concrete shearwall design & ACI 318-11 section 21.9.2.1
Please take a look at the program manual, RamConcreteShearWall.pdf, Section 7.4 Reinforcement Ratio Limits for some details on how we check ACI 318-11 Section 21.9.2.1. If that does not answer your question, let me know.
I've copied a part of that below, but the formatting is not good:
When the provisions of Chapter 21.9 are considered (Special Reinforced Concrete Structural Wall),
Sections 21.9.2.1 and 21.9.4.3 are also checked.
In these sections ACI uses the following terms:
ρl = Ratio of area of distributed longitudinal reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement.
ρt = Ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement.
Despite the above definitions given by ACI, ρl is also used within ACI 318-11 to denote horizontal reinforcing (e.g., 11.9.9.2), and ρt is also used to denote vertical reinforcing (e.g., 11.9.9.4). To resolve this, the following approach is used within the Shear Wall Design module:
In cases where ρlis referenced and the text within the ACI code section specifically mentions “vertical” reinforcing, ρlis calculated using the area of vertical reinforcing resulting from the Bar Pattern. If “vertical” reinforcing is not specifically referenced, the area of reinforcing is calculated using the area of the reinforcing bars that intersect and are normal to the Section Cut Segment under consideration.
In cases where ρt is referenced and the text within the ACI code section specifically mentions “horizontal” reinforcing, ρt is calculated using the area of horizontal reinforcing resulting from the Bar Pattern. If “horizontal” reinforcing is not specifically referenced, the area of reinforcing is calculated using the Bar Pattern that is parallel to the Section Cut Segment under consideration.
Sections 11.9.9.3 and 11.9.9.5 both specify spacing limits that are a function of the overall length of the wall, lw.
RAM uses the Section Cut Segment length for this value. The limitation of this assumption is that for very short wall segments, the limit spacing will likewise be small. Since the calculated spacing limit is compared to the nominal bar spacing and not the true bar spacing, false check failures may be reported for short wall segments.
↧
Concrete shearwall design & ACI 318-11 section 21.9.2.1
When checking the minimum distributed web reinforcement ratio for a concrete wall under ACI section 21.9.2, reducing the minimum ratio for vertical and horizontal steel is allowed when Vu is less than Acv*SQRT(f'c). Does RAM Concrete take this into consideration when running the checks on concrete shearwalls? Some of the longer walls I have designed seem to be giving me a warning when the reinforcement ratio is less than 0.0025, even when Vu is much less than the value referenced in 21.9.2.1.
↧
RE: Footing height below grade
Which program are you asking about (Ram Foundation, Ram Elements, STAAD Foundation Advanced)?
↧
↧
Footing height below grade
So I'm not sure what I should use for the height of the footing below grade
I tried to search for some answers but I had no luck or probably because I didnt fully understand what they meant so if someone could please tell me what is the Minimum height of the footing below grade and also the maximum!
Thank you for answering!
↧
RE: RAM SS: Walls Offset from Column Centerlines
Thanks, Karl. We were using the columns at each end trick outlined in the linked article. However, will the wall interact with the columns as intended if they are placed offset along construction grids?
↧
RAM SS: Walls Offset from Column Centerlines
I'm creating a building model through importing geometry from AutoCAD and making modifications where needed. I'd like to develop for myself a procedure for the most effective way of doing this and minimizing the required changes after import.
Many times walls are offset from column centerlines in the CAD framing plans. How is this typically handled to minimize required modifications after import? I believe walls always are modeled along column centerlines, correct?
Thanks!
↧
