RAM Structural & RAM Connection

There is not much to do assuming all the combinations have come across. Here are some basic things to check regarding seismic provisions: https://communities.bentley.com/products/ram-staad/w/structural_analysis_and_design__wiki/42274/ram-connection-seismic-provisions-settings

If the connection is direct welded there is not much to check beyond the column web. For that I'm generally satisfied with the Ram Frame joint check which does account for the presence of beams on both sides of the joint. Ram Connection also considers the opposite beam, but it's another setting to be aware of. If the connection is to be flange plated (FP), or moment end plated (MEP), then that's a good reason to take it through the Ram Connection design. 

Seth, one thing I notice is that RAM Frame Seismic Provisions Code Check is only reporting a Cpr factor of 1.1 instead of 1.4 required by AISC 358-16 for the WUF-W IMF connection. So in answer to AV's question about whether to use RAM Connection or trust the RAM Frame Joint Check, the answer is to only use the Joint Code Check as a preliminary, generic estimate of the adequacy of the connection because it's not taking into account configuration-specific parameters like Cpr. Accounting for the higher Cpr value, the correct prescriptive moment for that beam size is 5,435 kip-ft, not 4,270 kip-ft. So RAM Frame Joint Code Check underdesigns welded IMF connections by 27% and would not be appropriate for a final design.

Also, I notice that AV's output is showing the panel zone shear equal to the prescriptively-derived moment flange force, which typically makes for large web doubler requirements, even though this is in contrast to the intended goal of an Intermediate Moment Frame to provide much of the seismic dissipation through the ductile mode of panel zone yielding (AISC 341-16 E2.2). AISC 358-16 (and the current 2nd public review draft of 358-22) references 358 section 2.5 (in the 2016 version) or section 2.7 (in the 2022 draft) for panel zone shear requirements for prequal'd connections. Both versions of 358 refer back to the Seismic Provisions (AISC 341) and for IMF's, the user note of section E2.6e says that panel zones only need to be checked per AISC 360 section J10.6 for the design beam end moments based on the load combinations from the building code, not including overstrength. The need for continuity plates does get checked against the prescriptive max probable moment, but not the panel zone shear. This seems like the multiple issues I raised in 2020 about RAM Connection (standalone) not designing IMF welded connections correctly never got addressed in the case of RAM Connection being used as a module inside RSS....

As for AV's other question about load cases, when I see just dl as the governing combo in RAM Connection used inside of the RSS, it's usually because only the load cases are checked in the Connection module's Connection Design dialog regarding which cases/combinations to include in analysis. AV: if the combinations (C1, C2, C3...) aren't checked, click the all combinations buttons and you should start seeing load combination numbers showing up in the controlling combination in the RAM Connection report .

Also, AV: the use of the AISC Prequalified connections is contingent on a desired configuration falling within the envelope of what has already been tested, hence the designation "prequalified." WUF-W prequal'd connections are limited to a max beam weight of 150plf and max flange thickness of 1" in both the current 358-16 and the draft copy of 358-22, so your beam is outside the scope of the standard and would need to go through qualification testing as far as I know. Most people find other options such as shorter smaller beams before choosing the qualification route. Just something to keep in mind on this.

Seth, one thing I notice is that RAM Frame Seismic Provisions Code Check is only reporting a Cpr factor of 1.1 instead of 1.4 required by AISC 358-16 for the WUF-W IMF connection. So in answer to AV's question about whether to use RAM Connection or trust the RAM Frame Joint Check, the answer is to only use the Joint Code Check as a preliminary, generic estimate of the adequacy of the connection because it's not taking into account configuration-specific parameters like Cpr. Accounting for the higher Cpr value, the correct prescriptive moment for that beam size is 5,435 kip-ft, not 4,270 kip-ft. So RAM Frame Joint Code Check underdesigns welded IMF connections by 27% and would not be appropriate for a final design.

Also, I notice that AV's output is showing the panel zone shear equal to the prescriptively-derived moment flange force, which typically makes for large web doubler requirements, even though this is in contrast to the intended goal of an Intermediate Moment Frame to provide much of the seismic dissipation through the ductile mode of panel zone yielding (AISC 341-16 E2.2). AISC 358-16 (and the current 2nd public review draft of 358-22) references 358 section 2.5 (in the 2016 version) or section 2.7 (in the 2022 draft) for panel zone shear requirements for prequal'd connections. Both versions of 358 refer back to the Seismic Provisions (AISC 341) and for IMF's, the user note of section E2.6e says that panel zones only need to be checked per AISC 360 section J10.6 for the design beam end moments based on the load combinations from the building code, not including overstrength. The need for continuity plates does get checked against the prescriptive max probable moment, but not the panel zone shear. This seems like the multiple issues I raised in 2020 about RAM Connection (standalone) not designing IMF welded connections correctly never got addressed in the case of RAM Connection being used as a module inside RSS....

As for AV's other question about load cases, when I see just dl as the governing combo in RAM Connection used inside of the RSS, it's usually because only the load cases are checked in the Connection module's Connection Design dialog regarding which cases/combinations to include in analysis. AV: if the combinations (C1, C2, C3...) aren't checked, click the all combinations buttons and you should start seeing load combination numbers showing up in the controlling combination in the RAM Connection report .

Also, AV: the use of the AISC Prequalified connections is contingent on a desired configuration falling within the envelope of what has already been tested, hence the designation "prequalified." WUF-W prequal'd connections are limited to a max beam weight of 150plf and max flange thickness of 1" in both the current 358-16 and the draft copy of 358-22, so your beam is outside the scope of the standard and would need to go through qualification testing as far as I know. Most people find other options such as shorter smaller beams before choosing the qualification route. Just something to keep in mind on this.