<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://communities.bentley.com/cfs-file/__key/system/syndication/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>Michael Dupont's Activities</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/members/53ee5ba6_2d00_ae78_2d00_49c2_2d00_aaf5_2d00_a2b34165b895</link><description>Michael Dupont's recent activity</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 12</generator><item><title>Conspan slow analysis in V19.00.00.22</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/bridge_design___engineering/f/bridgemaster-lars-leap-openbridge-rm-forum/182339/conspan-slow-analysis-in-v19-00-00-22</link><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:09:42 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:0bcbf358-4c46-46b3-8108-15dbac4eba12</guid><dc:creator>Michael Dupont</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Have there been changes made in between V18 and V19.00.00.22 that would drastically slow down the performance on Conspan? Since receiving the update the speed of running the analysis has gone from seconds to hours to run a simple analysis on a non-continuous simply supported 5 span precast beam bridge. Is there a change to the default settings that could speed up the Analysis, it seems to be cycling endlessly between the &amp;quot;Truck Positions...&amp;quot; bar, and being non-responsive.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Ask A Question I</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/achievements/460ac7df-7ccc-4c42-a204-9e05eef3be09</link><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:47:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:1ef2fcbb-5844-4187-a466-b1d92de7da0c</guid><dc:creator /><description>Ask a question in a forum.</description></item><item><title>RC Pier EH loads on pier</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/bridge_design___engineering/f/bridgemaster-lars-leap-openbridge-rm-forum/133661/rc-pier-eh-loads-on-pier</link><pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:32:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:0bef0b95-1be9-4b18-b78b-f87d1f65f87b</guid><dc:creator>Michael Dupont</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I am designing a pier with a spread footing with unbalanced soil loads on the footing with a large crash strut that will be cast directly on the spread foundation that will be running the length of the foundation. This crash strut performs double duty as a retaining wall&amp;nbsp; for the difference in grade This issue relates to the how the unbalanced earth load is applied to the foundation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that the EV loads are fairly straight forward to input even though they do not appear on the 3D geometry, (which is always a handy check to determine if the loads are being input along the correct directions) This handles the EV portion of the unbalanced earth forces. However, the Earth Horizontal (EH) loads are problematic, since they cannot be input as a force located a distance above the top of the foundation (only as a force on piles) it is necessary to input this load as a moment on the footing and that is where the problem is.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt; If the direction of the EH moment on the&amp;nbsp;pier&amp;nbsp;is reversed, there is no effect on the maximum soil pressures (factored or service).&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;nbsp; As a test case, if the EH moment force is deleted the results are normal. Is there a better way to do this and what is the sign convention when applying moments to a foundation? I am currently using version 14 and realize there are several newer versions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>