Sye,
Thanks for following up.
In regards to Item #1, I know exactly what STAAD is doing and as I stated in my original post, that way is "not correct". I suggest Bentley to consider fixing this otherwise STAAD will be reporting stress ratios that are way off by a big margin with respect to the correct value.
Regarding Item #2; this one was more of a "Courtesy Note to Bentley" to realize what other codes will need to be fixed. I was not referring to the AISC 360's as I know exactly the concept they follow and that they have separate Clauses in Chapter F to address the singly symmetric "I" sections with specific formulas for "each fiber". The note like I said was more like a Note to Bentley to think about other either Domestic or International "ASD" Specifications for which STAAD may have the same error as for the AISC 335-89 (Green Book). Think for example in any other Domestic and/or International ASD Specifications that are still tailgating the AISC 335-89.
Now, as an extra piece of information, let me tell you that few days ago Phil Riegel sent me the TRACK 2.0 Reports (run with one of the latest versions, maybe 20.07.11.70) of some files I sent him. This is for the same topic of singly symmetric "I" shapes, but now to check the AISC 360's. Preliminary, I can tell you that I have already found some issues. I will be putting my markups together soon in a separate Thread/Posting.
In regards to Items #3 and #4.- Thanks for agreeing that STAAD has the errors on these items and please let me know the time frame estimated to get these errors fixed.
Item #5.- As an additional Item, Phil said that the error of STAAD reporting wrong Ratios for the "I" shapes with cover plates has been fixed for the AISC 360's code checks. I have not verified that the fix was done correctly. I will shortly. However, I was wondering if you would mind checking that if these "I" shapes with one cover plate which become singly symmetric have the same error described in Item #1 above for code checking with AISC 335-89. Remember that Item #1 was originally only focused on checking examples with the “WIDE FLANGE” and “ISECTION” options to input the geometric properties (widths and thicknesses) but we never talked about shapes with cover plates. Please check and let me know if they have the same error.
Cheers,
David G
Thanks for following up.
In regards to Item #1, I know exactly what STAAD is doing and as I stated in my original post, that way is "not correct". I suggest Bentley to consider fixing this otherwise STAAD will be reporting stress ratios that are way off by a big margin with respect to the correct value.
Regarding Item #2; this one was more of a "Courtesy Note to Bentley" to realize what other codes will need to be fixed. I was not referring to the AISC 360's as I know exactly the concept they follow and that they have separate Clauses in Chapter F to address the singly symmetric "I" sections with specific formulas for "each fiber". The note like I said was more like a Note to Bentley to think about other either Domestic or International "ASD" Specifications for which STAAD may have the same error as for the AISC 335-89 (Green Book). Think for example in any other Domestic and/or International ASD Specifications that are still tailgating the AISC 335-89.
Now, as an extra piece of information, let me tell you that few days ago Phil Riegel sent me the TRACK 2.0 Reports (run with one of the latest versions, maybe 20.07.11.70) of some files I sent him. This is for the same topic of singly symmetric "I" shapes, but now to check the AISC 360's. Preliminary, I can tell you that I have already found some issues. I will be putting my markups together soon in a separate Thread/Posting.
In regards to Items #3 and #4.- Thanks for agreeing that STAAD has the errors on these items and please let me know the time frame estimated to get these errors fixed.
Item #5.- As an additional Item, Phil said that the error of STAAD reporting wrong Ratios for the "I" shapes with cover plates has been fixed for the AISC 360's code checks. I have not verified that the fix was done correctly. I will shortly. However, I was wondering if you would mind checking that if these "I" shapes with one cover plate which become singly symmetric have the same error described in Item #1 above for code checking with AISC 335-89. Remember that Item #1 was originally only focused on checking examples with the “WIDE FLANGE” and “ISECTION” options to input the geometric properties (widths and thicknesses) but we never talked about shapes with cover plates. Please check and let me know if they have the same error.
Cheers,
David G
