Warning in RAM: Bolt slip class does not match slip resistance recommendations

Hi Vishal. I have had the following response: 'We revised the connection in STAAD and compared to a RAM Connection Standalone model with the same data and it seems that STAAD is not working correctly with the Slip resistance check. We are looking further into this and will get back to you when we have further information. regarding your second query, internal plates are included as additional plates to the external cover plates as seen in the following figure.

These plates help the external plates in some design checks. The configuration with Internal plates alone (without the external cover plates) is not supported by the program.

Hi Vishal, i am awaiting a response from the development team and will get back to one I have this ionformation.

Hi rtully14, 

Sorry for the delayed response.

Please find my comments wrt to your previous post below:

For load type Design and prevent bolt slip at ultimate combination, results are same i.e., no slip resistant check.

For load type Service and prevent bolt slip at serviceability combination, now the unity check other than slip resistant is also not shown in the result.

just for a sake of info, may i know why splices with internal plate are not included in the design,

i mean, as far as i know it differs from the external plate case in distance to calculate the net tension (plate center to center distance instead of column outer dist).

Regards,

Vishal

Points 1 and 2

Even after selecting grades M20 HSFG (mu_0.2) warning does not disappear? Also, I don’t find any slip resistance check in the connection report?

Results for M20 Grade 8.8 bolts and M20 HSFG (mu_0.2) match irrespective of mu factor?

1. When the bolt with a “mu” value is selected to have the slip resistance check in the report the “Check slip resistance” flag should be checked and the combo with the “Prevent bolts slip” option should match the Load type in the loads spreadsheet. The Load types are: Design and Service. The options in the “Prevent bolts slip” combo are: Serviceability and Ultimate. For example, the data in the following figure will not add the slip resistance check in the design report because the Load type = Design and the level to prevent slip is Serviceability.

The combination in the figure above does not produce slip resistance check in the report.

Point 3

I thought if both were combined it would be easier to visualise from execution to point of view?

1. The way RAM Connection works is by holding one simple/shear connection in the web of members and another moment connection in the flanges. For the case of splices, a joint handles a web splice connection and a flange splice connection.

Point 4

As you note there are three options for bearing splices specified by SCI:

RAM Connection only gives option (c) above. Will option (a) and (b) be added soon?

1. Option (a) may be modeled using RAM Connection, providing gap equals to zero in the joint definition. Then assigning the adequate template will result in a bearing splice. However, currently we are reporting more capacities than needed as if the connection is non-bearing type. We’ll contract the report to the suggested design checks per green book design procedure.

I also noticed bearing type and non-bearing type splices provide same results (corresponding to non-bearing splices), should this be the case?

1. No, this is a glitch that we are fixing for next version, Bearing-type splices do not have all the checks that are currently reported. Thus, as explained in the previous point, design checks that are not required will be removed from Bearing-type report. Notice that the bearing type splice needs to be assigned to column splice joint with gap set to zero.

Sorry, the template exists in the current version, only sequence is changed in the connect edition.

Don't forget to look after the points to be cleared.