<?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>Andrew DeWilde's Activities</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/members/9f351672_2d00_1e23_2d00_4076_2d00_b581_2d00_968faa62d0f5</link><description>Andrew DeWilde's recent activity</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 12</generator><item><title>Ram Connection Column Base Plate Not Using V3 Shear?</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/ram-staad/f/ram-staad-forum/247023/ram-connection-column-base-plate-not-using-v3-shear</link><pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:08:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:6e58a189-3c74-427d-bd9e-0ff58f153062</guid><dc:creator>Andrew DeWilde</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;It appears that when designing baseplates using ram connection, the program does not take into account shear in the minor axis despite having the option to input. Is this intended?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img style="max-height:240px;max-width:320px;" src="/resized-image/__size/640x480/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/pastedimage1687893032148v1.png" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;img style="max-height:240px;max-width:320px;" src="/resized-image/__size/640x480/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/pastedimage1687893054037v2.png" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Clarification on how RAM Frame handles parapet exposure</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/ram-staad/f/ram-staad-forum/219247/clarification-on-how-ram-frame-handles-parapet-exposure</link><pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2021 18:55:04 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:a7e6f934-a52d-4a35-b306-e5553db49a7e</guid><dc:creator>Andrew DeWilde</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I am a bit confused on how ram handles parapet exposure so I wanted to be sure I was interpreting correctly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the user manual, it says that &amp;quot;parapets are only considered when the building steps, that is, the extent of the level above perpendicular to the direction of the applied wind force is less than the extent of a given level.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Consider a building that is two stories, both stories are the same height, but the footprint of the higher story is 1/4 of the lower story. See below in Figure A, red indicates the lower story, and blue indicates the higher story. Also consider that there is a parapet all the way around the lower story who&amp;#39;s height is equal to the upper story. Based on the wording of the manual, I would assume that wind on a parapet is generated like in figures B.1 and C.1, where the highlight indicates the length of parapet that the program is considering. However, figures B.2 and C.2 indicate how wind on parapet should be realistically generated.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/pastedimage1631127019823v2.png" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is ram generating wind on parapet like in figures B.1 and C.1? Or is it generating wind on parapet like figures B.2 and C.2?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If ram is generating wind on parapet like in figures B.1 and C.1, is there any easy way to ensure that wind load is eccentrically applied to the lower story diaphragm beyond user defined story forces or nodal forces?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Ram SS phantom nodes in Modeler</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/ram-staad/f/ram-staad-forum/205117/ram-ss-phantom-nodes-in-modeler</link><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:58:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:1c1b0a8f-c7dd-488f-93d0-7c3d6fbb81cb</guid><dc:creator>Andrew DeWilde</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;In the modeler there are nodes that your cursor snaps to (like when putting a column off grid). However after changing framing schemes around I&amp;#39;ve found that sometimes these nodes created remain. Is there a way to delete these phantom nodes? I currently found a work around through trial and error and copying types: If I copy everything from one type except for loads, there will be no phantom nodes. If I do copy everything then the phantom nodes are copied over. I will note that when applying loads I use the whole floor button, and same for decking. Also I have moved grids around quite a bit, which I know can cause a lot of issues, but doing the workaround I found above, all phantom nodes disappear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/pastedimage1603828675281v1.png" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Andrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Ram elements retaining wall - adjacent footings</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/ram-staad/f/ram-staad-forum/203933/ram-elements-retaining-wall---adjacent-footings</link><pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:38:34 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:6148d92f-7098-4a14-9497-e31aad94b3df</guid><dc:creator>Andrew DeWilde</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently I am dealing with a cantilever retaining wall that will have a possibility of large trucks driving close to it. I am trying to figure out how ram applies point loads. Is it dumping all of this load onto a 1 foot section of wall? I&amp;#39;ve tried using Boussinesq&amp;#39;s method for a point load (program is also using this) to get similar values, and my results are larger. Is there some sort of averaging that ram does to take into account the wall being longer than 1 foot?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>RAM concept span detailing</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/ram-staad/f/ram-staad-forum/191574/ram-concept-span-detailing</link><pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:23:04 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:9bcf58af-f391-4445-9139-981a102aa484</guid><dc:creator>Andrew DeWilde</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am having trouble understanding span detailing in a two way slab. Based on what I have researched and read, it looks like pass 0 calculates required As as a minimum requirement. I also know that this minimum requirement is based on the detailing rules.&amp;nbsp;However when I turn off code minimum design for design rules, why does this minimum requirement still run for strength in pass 0? Currently in my model, the required reinforcement for strength with span detailing is almost double without span detailing.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/pastedimage1579896361209v1.png" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/pastedimage1579896380890v2.png" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Concrete Load Combinations - Seismic/Wind is Service</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/ram-staad/f/ram-staad-forum/190810/concrete-load-combinations---seismic-wind-is-service</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 20:45:42 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:41566c5d-5b19-413d-a69f-94c7a5ecf7cf</guid><dc:creator>Andrew DeWilde</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I had a question about generating concrete load combinations in the RAM Foundation module. There is an option to use different load factors if the seismic and wind loads are service. I understand the concept of using a higher load factor if your forces are service from ACI 318-11, but when would this option need to be used specifically when using RAM SS? Would this be utilized only if you are using an older version of the code that previously would calculate these loads for service? Am I OK to use the normal load factors if I am calculating my loads based off of ASCE 7-10 (as RAM is calculating the loads at a strength level)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5932/pastedimage1578429677470v2.png" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks&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>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 01:46:32 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:33a317fc-11b6-495d-9e3c-ba20624acc3c</guid><dc:creator /><description>Ask a question in a forum.</description></item></channel></rss>