RAM Structural System V8i SELECTseries 7 Release 14.7 Release Notes
Release Date: February 26, 2015
This document contains important information regarding changes to the RAM Structural System. It is important that all users are aware of these changes. Please distribute these release notes and make them available to all users of the RAM Structural System.
The Tutorial Manual has not been updated but is still valid. The appearance of some parts of the program in this version may differ from that shown in the Tutorial.
Windows XP is no longer supported. Version 14.07 has not been certified to run on Windows XP. Windows 7 and later are supported.
Version 14.07 automatically converts databases created in previous versions to the new database format. Note that a backup file is created automatically when a database is converted; the name of the database is the same, with “Orig” and the version number appended to the name. The file has an extension of “.zip” and is located in the same directory as the original database.
The previous steel tables and load combination templates supplied with the program will be replaced with new tables and templates of the same name. If you have customized any Master or Design tables or load combination templates supplied with the program without changing the file names, those file names should be renamed from the original RAM table names prior to installation to prevent your changes from being lost.
This version can be found on the Bentley SELECT Services Downloads and Updates web page at:
Select “Search Downloads” and log in using your User Name and Password. Perform a Search by searching for the “RAM Products”, and select the latest version of the RAM Structural System.
New Features and Enhancements:
For details on these new features and enhancements, refer to the manual .pdf files available from the Help menu in each module or from the Manuals folder on your hard drive.
Manage License Restrictions
Bentley’s Open Access licensing scheme does not prevent the use of any program modules for which a license has not been purchased. Use of such modules is permitted, but will result in a quarterly usage fee. To prevent the inadvertent use of such modules a Tools – Manage License Restrictions command has been added in the RAM Manager that allows the user to specify which modules are to be accessible and which modules are not. Only those modules that are selected in that dialog can be accessed.
Bentley Communities is a community website with blogs and wikis rich in technical content. This includes technical discussions on a variety of topics as well has answers to questions from clients on specific features of specific programs. This is a much underutilized resource that users and others are invited to peruse. To make this material more accessible, and to make it more immediate and relevant, a new Communities button has been incorporated in several of the commands in the RAM Structural System. Invoking this button brings up a browser, with content relevant to the particular feature from which the command was invoked. The author, creation date and revision date are listed, to assist in determining the timeliness of the information. A list of articles is created, from which a desired article can be selected for reading. A Search feature is included to enable searches for articles on any keyword entered. This feature will expand to more commands as additional relevant content is created.
Composite Beam Design Improvements
In the selection and investigation of studs for composite beam design the program comprehensively investigates the conditions that affect the placement of the studs, including the effects of the deck rib spacing, orientation and location along the beam and the likely location of the studs relative to points of zero and maximum moments. Several refinements have been made in the calculation of the required studs and in the analysis of composite beams with user-specified stud quantities. This includes, for example, better consideration of the likely number of ribs crossing the beam when the deck is perpendicular (or at an angle), and the likely placement of the studs along the member. As a result of these changes you may see slight differences in some of the beams designs as pertaining to the quantity of studs. A discussion of these changes and their effects is given here. Note that for the vast majority of beams there will be no changes in the number of studs specified by the program, and where there are differences they will almost always be a slight reduction in the number of studs required.
Some design warning messages have been enhanced and additional design warning messages have been implemented, making it clearer as to the reasons for beam failures.
Studs for Concentrated Loads:
In addition to the requirements for the number of studs required to satisfy the capacity at the point of maximum moment the Specifications have requirements for the number of studs required to satisfy the capacity at the points of concentrated loads. When optimizing the studs on beams the program conforms to these requirements to ensure that there are sufficient studs along the various beam segments to satisfy the capacity demands at these locations. However, when checking a user-specified size, including ‘frozen’ sizes, the program did not give any warnings of the user-specified studs did not satisfy these requirements. The design error was apparent in the View/Update command even without the warnings because in that dialog the number of studs required is listed under “Partial”; if the number of studs specified by the user, as listed under “Actual”, is less than the number listed under “Partial”, the user-specified studs are inadequate, and in the absence of any other design error messages the most likely problem was insufficient studs to satisfy the requirements at the points of concentrated loads. To resolve the design deficiency the user should always specify at least as many studs as are listed as required for “Partial”. Checking each beam that has a user-specified size individually in the View/Update is inconvenient, however, so in this version the program explicitly tests the beam capacity at the points of concentrated loads using the user-specified studs and gives design error messages if the capacity at those points is insufficient. Again, it is emphasized that in the optimization of studs and beam sizes the program always checked and designed for the requirements at the points of concentrated loads, but in the analysis of user-specified beams and stud it did not check and give design error messages for the requirements at the points of concentrated loads.
Furthermore, if the demand/capacity ratio at a point of concentrated load is the controlling ratio for the beam, the Beam Design report will list the moment, capacity and location as the Controlling condition. Also, this value will be used in the display of the Controlling Interaction values in the Process – Design Colors command. Previously the demand/capacity displayed in that command did not consider that the demand/capacity ratio a point of concentrated load may be greater.
Note: For the ASD 9th Ed. requirements the stress ratio at the point of concentrated loads is not considered in the Controlling Interaction values, since the Specification requirements for satisfying the stud requirements at those points does not include the calculation of the stresses.
Determining Number of Deck Ribs Crossing Beam:
The program considers the number of deck ribs that cross the beam when the deck is not parallel. This impacts the placement of the studs and the number of studs that can fit on the beam. Note that for a given length of beam the number of ribs that cross that beam varies depending on how the deck is laid out. For example, a 27.5’ beam with deck with 12” rib spacing may support either 27 or 28 ribs, depending on where the first rib occurs along the beam. In some cases the program was not consistent in the value that it used; now it always uses the smaller value. This is reasonable since the beam’s actual length is something less than the center-to-center length used in these calculations, so it is highly unlikely that the larger number of ribs will actually cross the beam.
Note that for determining the available ribs for placing studs for the strength calculations, using the smaller value is conservative (which is what the program does), but for determining the compliance with the maximum stud spacing requirement using the larger number is conservative (which is what the program was doing). The impact of this discrepancy was most notably seen when the user specified a maximum stud spacing that was the same as the rib spacing (for example, 12”) and the final design only required a small beam whose flange width was only wide enough to accommodate a single row of studs. To satisfy the maximum stud spacing the program would specify the number of studs to satisfy the larger number of ribs but then when doing the final verification of the capacity of the studs using the smaller number of ribs the program would give a design warning message that those studs didn’t fit in a single row (there was one more stud than the number of ribs it was then considering). This conflict has now been eliminated by consistently using the same value for the number of ribs crossing the beam for all checks. This change may result in fewer studs on the beam than was erroneously specified previously.
Studs at Point of Maximum Moment:
If a stud is placed at the point of maximum moment it does not contribute to the strength of the composite beam because at the point of maximum moment there is no horizontal shear between the concrete and the steel beam and therefore that stud is not resisting any shear. The program ignores any stud that occurs at the point of maximum moment, and furthermore when optimizing the quantity of studs may add an additional stud if necessary to force a placement of studs such that none of the studs occur at the point of maximum moment (for example, for a beam with the point of maximum moment at midspan, 9 studs uniformly spaced on the beam would place one stud at midspan which would not contribute to the strength of the composite beam, but 10 studs uniformly spaced would result in 5 studs each side of the point of maximum moment, each contributing to the strength of the composite beam). Furthermore, depending on the way the deck is laid out any stud near the point of maximum moment may occur on one side or the other of the point of maximum moment and therefore cannot be counted on to contribute to the strength on a given side; the program ignores studs too close to the point of maximum moment. When the point of maximum moment occurred at midspan this all worked well, but when the point of maximum moment was offset from midspan the program may have done a poor job of recognizing whether it was appropriate or not to ignore a stud near that point or to add an additional stud to move the studs away from that point (the distance considered too close to the point of maximum moment was too conservative). As a result the program may have added one more stud than was necessary, or may have rejected a user-specified quantity of studs that may have been reasonable but determined to include a stud unacceptably near the point of maximum moment by the program. This change may result in fewer studs on the beam than was erroneously specified previously.
User-Specified Minimum Percent Composite:
The program allows the user to specify a minimum percent composite that is more stringent than the applicable Code. When selecting the studs the program increases the number of studs if necessary to meet this criteria. However, there was one condition where the program failed to enforce the user-specified minimum and did not warn the user: if the distance between the beginning of the segment and the point of maximum moment was short such that it was possible to place enough studs to satisfy the Code-required minimum percent composite but not possible to place enough studs to satisfy the more stringent User-specified minimum percent composite, the program would select the studs that satisfied the Code requirement but not those that satisfied the user-specified minimum, and gave no warning of the condition. Note that this meant the beam satisfied the Code, so it was not a dangerous design, it merely failed to meet the more stringent user-specified requirement. Now for this condition the program will still revert to the quantity of studs that satisfy the Code-required minimum percent composite but will give a warning indicating that the user-specified minimum percent composite was not satisfied. The user then has the option of either ignoring the warning or modifying the design as desired.
Also, previously when analyzing a beam with a user-specified quantity of studs the program did not check or warn when those user-specified studs did not satisfy the user-specified minimum percent composite; it was assumed that since the user had specified the number of studs that the user didn’t intend to comply with that user-specified minimum percent. However, a check has now been implemented, and if the user-specified studs do not satisfy the user-specified minimum percent composite a design warning is given. The user can then decide whether to ignore the warning or to add more studs.
Tolerance on Minimum Percent Composite:
To avoid potential problems caused by round-off differences between the functions of the program that calculate the number of studs required to meet minimum percent composite and those that calculate the actual percent composite for a given number of studs, a tolerance is applied to the test to determine if a design meets the minimum percent composite requirements. That tolerance was 0.1%, which meant, for example, that a beam designed using AISC 360 was considered to meet the 25% minimum requirement even if it was actually only 24.9% composite. The algorithms have been improved and the 0.1% tolerance is considered excessive so it has been reduced to 0.01% (which means, for example, that a beam now needs to be at least 24.99% composite to be considered as meeting the 25% minimum requirement). It is highly unlikely now that a beam for which the percent composite falls within that tolerance will ever be encountered, and almost certainly not by an optimized design.
Maximum Stud Spacing:
When determining the number of studs the program considers both the Code and user-specified requirements for maximum stud spacing. When the deck ribs are at an angle to the beam the program considers how the studs need to be spaced, accounting for the spacing of the ribs in relation to the maximum stud spacing. For example, if the maximum stud spacing is 30” and the rib spacing is 12” the studs need to be spaced at 24” maximum (every other rib) in order to satisfy the 30” required maximum. The program handles this condition correctly. However, when the deck is parallel to the girder or when the slab is a flat slab there was a potential error in the number of studs specified by the program when the quantity of studs was controlled by maximum spacing. The spacing within any girder segment correctly satisfied the maximum spacing requirements but potentially the maximum spacing requirement was exceeded between the last stud in one segment and the first stud in the adjacent segment. As a result of this correction segments controlled by maximum stud spacing may have one additional stud more than was given in the previous design. For existing models with frozen or user-specified beam sizes and stud quantities a design warning may now be given indicating that there are insufficient studs to satisfy the maximum stud spacing requirements. Note that despite the message this doesn’t necessarily mean that there is an error, it depends on how the studs are laid out in the adjacent bay; if the two adjacent bays were not both controlled by maximum stud spacing it is possible that the studs required in one bay will result in a stud placed sufficiently close to the end of the segment such that the distance from that stud to the first stud in the next bay actually satisfies the requirement. So for those frozen designs the message may or may not be correct, depending on the stud distribution within the segments. For optimized designs the program will now consistently call for studs such that the potential problem no longer exists. This change may result in one more stud within segments of the girder than was specified previously (but only if maximum spacing, not strength, controlled the number of studs).
Beams With Cantilevers:
When a beam has a cantilever, any studs placed within the length of the beam where the moment is negative (the concrete is in tension) cannot be considered to contribute to the composite capacity of the beam. When calculating the beam capacity the program correctly ignores those studs, but when trying to select the optimum beams size and stud quantity the program may have failed to try enough studs before failing that size and going to the next larger trial size. As a result, the program may have selected as the optimum size a beam that was larger than necessary.
The program allows the user to specify on a beam-by-beam basis that the rib spacing is to be ignored when determining the number and placement of the studs. This is useful in the case of a beam that is highly skewed with respect to the deck, resulting in a very limited number of ribs actually crossing the beam. When the user specifies this it is then assumed that the beam is going to be detailed such that the deck is split and separated along the beam length or that the ribs are going to be flattened as necessary along the beam length so that the studs can be placed anywhere along the beam regardless of the rib locations. Internally, some of the calculations of capacity and spacing where erroneously ignoring this assignment, so in rare cases the program may have required more studs than were actually necessary for the beams for which the Ignore Ribs command had been assigned.
The program allows the user to specify that the concrete slab supported by the beams is a formed flat slab, rather than concrete on metal deck. This affects stud capacity and placement, as the studs can be placed anywhere along the beam without regard to any rib locations. Internally, some of the calculations of capacity and spacing where erroneously ignoring this condition, so in rare cases the program may have required more studs than were actually necessary for the beams supporting formed flat slabs.
Canada Concrete CAN/CSA A23.3-04 (R2010)
The concrete design requirements of CAN/CSA A23.3-04 (R2010) have been implemented for beam and column design in the RAM Concrete module. Comprehensive design includes bar selection, not just a listing of required steel area. Extensive criteria and design options allow the design to be highly customized, and reinforcement can be optimized or user-assigned and analyzed. Designs can be copied from one member to another.
Reports include individual member designs, design summaries, and takeoffs. Floor plans, base plans with column marks, column schedules, and beam schedules and elevations can be created for CAD. The model, including reinforcement bars, can be exported to BIM, such as Bentley’s AECOsim Building Designer and Autodesk Revit
NBC of Canada 2010
The pertinent requirements of NBC of Canada 2010 have been implemented. These include:
Live Load Reduction. This is unchanged from NBC of Canada 2005.
Load Combinations. Load combination template for use with CSA A23.3 concrete design has been added.
Wind Loads. The requirements for the calculation of Wind story forces have been implemented, including the requirements for Full and Partial loading, resulting in several generated Wind load cases. For the clauses that require that a percent of the load be removed from “any portion of the area”, the program uses one-half of the story width for that portion. This simplifying assumption is generally adequate for the generation of story forces on most structures, but if not the user can create user-specified story force load cases or nodal load cases.
Seismic Loads. The requirements for the calculation of Seismic story forces using the Equivalent Static Force Procedure have been implemented, including the requirements for torsional effects as required in Clause 220.127.116.11.10(a). An option to generate additional load cases, Consider Orthogonal Effects (100%/30%), is also available when required by the Direction of Loading requirements of Clause 18.104.22.168.1(c).
Response Spectra. Load cases based on the Modal Response Spectrum Method can be generated. These load cases include the accidental torsional moments, obtained by shifting the centres of mass in accordance with Clause 22.214.171.124.4(b).
NBC of Canada Importance Category – Important Changes
Previously in the Criteria – Member Loads command in the Manager, when NBC of Canada was selected, the Importance Category needed to be specified. This was used to decrease the Live, Roof and Snow loads if the Importance was Low, and to increase the Snow load if the Importance was High or Post-disaster. This was done correctly for steel columns in RAM Steel Column, but the Snow loads were not increased in RAM Steel Beam when required. Furthermore, since the definition of the Snow load explicitly includes the Importance Category factor it created the potential that the user would specify the Snow loads in the Modeler already modified by the factor, and that the program would then again apply that factor. To eliminate this possible confusion and the incorrect application of the factors the option to specify the Importance Category has been removed. It is expected that the user will apply the Importance Category factors as appropriate to the Live, Roof and Snow load values entered in the Modeler. The program will not apply any factors based on the Importance Category to these loads.
In RAM Frame Steel Design module the load combination templates for S16-01 and S16-09 included options to specify Importance Category factors for Live, Roof, Snow, Wind and Seismic. Since the equations for the calculation of Snow, Wind and Seismic loads explicitly include the Importance Category factors (and the automatic load generators for Wind and Seismic include them), the factors were possibly getting applied to those loads twice – once when the load was defined/generated and again in the Load Combinations. The options for specifying the Importance Category factors have been removed from the S16-01 and S16-09 load combination templates since they are redundant and unnecessary. The error, if it occurred, was conservative unless the Importance Category was Low.
Note that if the Importance Category was Normal, no errors occurred.
FloorVibe and FloorVibeUK
For vibration analysis of steel floor framing systems the RAM Steel Beam module has the ability to launch special versions of FloorVibe, based on AISC/CISC Design Guide 11, and FloorVibeUK, based on SCI Publication P354. These programs were developed by renowned vibration expert Thomas Murray and are a product of Structural Engineers, Inc. They have previously been distributed with the RAM Structural System on a limited basis, and had to be installed separately. These programs are now part of the RAM Structural System installation, making them both available to all RAM Structural System clients. These special versions can only be launched from the RAM Structural System. For stand-alone versions go to the Structural Engineer, Inc., website at www.floorvibe.com for more information.
CoreBrace Buckling Restrained Braces
In RAM Frame, the implementation of CoreBrace Buckling Restrained Braces (BRB) has been significantly enhanced. They are now recognized as a distinct shape in the Assign – Braces – Size command, and can be assigned, analyzed and designed. Criteria for CoreBrace BRB’s can be set using the Criteria – Buckling Restrained – CoreBrace command which is used globally for those braces, or can be assigned to individual braces using the Assign – Braces – Buckling Restrained – CoreBrace command. The Stiffness Modifier is automatically calculated, but can be over-ridden by the user if desired. Beta and Omega factors are automatically calculated, but can be over-ridden by the user if desired. The braces are checked per the requirements of the AISC 360 Specifications and the AISC 341 Seismic Provisions.
See this wiki for a detailed description of this feature: Specifying and Designing CoreBrace Buckling Restrained Braces in the RAM Structural System.
Beta and Omega factors are calculated both at 2x Design Story Drift and at 2% Design Story Drift.
Welded, Bolted, Pinned and Splice Plate connect types – including the corresponding specified Minimum connection clearances – are considered in the calculation of the Stiffness Modifiers. Additionally, if necessary for a particular project, tables with Custom connections can be obtained from CoreBrace. The assigned connection types are displayed with a unique icon on each buckling restrained brace.
Columns are designed based on the adjusted brace strength.
The ability to analyze and design generic BRB’s that was previously available is still available.
Note: Because this more complete implementation of CoreBrace Buckling Restrained Braces uses a specialized table, the master table named CoreBraceAISC.TAB that was installed with previous versions can be deleted from the Tables directory. We recommend that any models currently using that old table be modified to take advantage of the new CoreBrace capabilitie; this includes re-assigning CoreBrace brace sizes to the braces as illustrated in the wiki referenced above.
Star Seismic Buckling Restrained Braces
The Star Seismic Buckling Restrained Braces feature has been enhanced:
Brace size labels now include text indicating the brace type, “(P)” for Powercat and “(W)” for Wildcat.
For the Seismic Provisions check per AISC 341-10 the program is now calculating the b and w factors both at 2 times the Design Story Drift and at 2% Story Drift.
The Criteria – Buckling Restrained – Star Seismic command has been modified so that the user inputs the value for Cd/Ie rather than simply Cd. Previously the program pulled the Ie value from the load case generator information, but that information wasn’t always available, so the program was simplified to require the user to specify Cd/Ie directly.
In Criteria – Design Steel Tables in RAM Manager there is a new tab for BRB which allows the user to select the table to be used, rather than always using the ramstarseismic table. This is useful in the event that a project-specific table is supplied by Star Seismic.
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames and Special Concentric Braced Frames
For AISC 341 an option has been added allowing the user to specify whether the Required Strength of columns is based on the Adjusted Brace Strength (as per the Specification), based on the Amplified Seismic Forces using W0 (generally a more conservative approach), or based on the larger of those two values.
Previously when testing for the Width-To-Thickness ratios for webs in Table D1.1 the program conservatively assumed Ca = 1.0. If the size conformed the program reported that the size passed the test, but if it didn’t conform it indicated that the beam Failed. Because of the conservative assumption that Ca = 1.0, this wasn’t necessarily true. Now the program performs the test with that conservative assumption but rather than Failing sizes that don’t conform it indicates Additional Check Required. The additional check that must be performed is to determine the actual Pu in the beam from an analysis that considers the brace overstrength factors (which is not performed by the program), determine the limiting width-to-thickness ratios given in Table D1.1, and compare with the beam’s h/tw ratio.
Buckling Restrained Braces in Gravity Load Cases Analysis
An option has been added to the RAM Frame Analysis criteria allowing the user to specify that braces in buckling restrained braced frames be excluded from the frame model in the analysis of the Gravity load cases. This ensures that no gravity loads are distributed to the braces by the analysis, and that all gravity loads are carried by the columns.
Analysis Results Export
In RAM Frame a command has been added allowing the user to export analysis results to a text file, in .csv format. The File – Export Analysis Results – Nodal Reactions command creates a file listing the nodal reactions for each load case for each foundation node. The File – Export Analysis Results – Nodal Displacements command creates a file listing the nodal displacements for each load case for each foundation node. The File – Export Analysis Results – Member Forces command creates a file listing the member forces for each load case for every member. When invoked, the user is prompted to specify a file name and location; otherwise by default they are created in the Reports directory and are given the name of the database appended with “_NodalReactions”, “_NodalDisplacements”, and “_MemberForces”, respectively. In the future this feature will be expanded to include more results and data.
ASCE 7-10 / IBC 2012 ASD Combinations
The Errata to ASCE 7-10, posted on January 11, 2011, modified Equation #6 under Basic Combinations for Allowable Stress Design in Section 126.96.36.199. With the revision it is not necessary to include Roof Loads in combinations with Seismic Loads. The combination template RamSteelIBC2012_ASD.cmb has been modified to conform to the Errata revision. This template is used in the RAM Frame – Steel Standard Provisions module.
ASCE 7-10 Seismic Load Report
The Loads and Applied Forces report has been enhanced for the ASCE 7-10 Seismic load cases to more clearly list the calculated values for Cs, including the values from the minimum and maximum equations, and the value used in the determination of the base shear and story forces.
ACI 318-11 Concrete Density
Previously limited to maximum concrete density of 155 pcf, the program now allows a concrete density of up to 160 pcf as is permitted by ACI 318-11.
BS 4449-05 and BS 8666-05 Reinforcement Designation
In the RAMUKType2M.ren table of reinforcement, the reinforcement designation has been changed from T to H in accordance with BS 4449-05 and BS 8666-05.
EN 1991-1-1:2002 Storage Live Load Reduction
The March 2009 Corrigendum eliminated the reduction of Storage Live Loads for Eurocode EN 1991-1-1:2002 Clause 188.8.131.52(10) and (11). When Eurocode is selected as the design code, Storage Live Loads are no longer reduced.
Steel Beam View/Update
The Steel Beam View/Update dialog has been enhanced to show the Demand/Capacity ratios, for both Strength and Deflection.
Steel Column Unbraced Length
Previously, if a steel column was supported by a concrete column at a level where the concrete column was not laterally restrained by beams, the program would conservatively combine the steel column height and the concrete column height between braced levels when determining the unbraced length to use for the design of the steel column. The program now assumes that the concrete column below has been designed sufficiently stiff to act as a cantilevering column, and hence the unbraced length of the steel column only includes the length of the steel column, from where it sits on the concrete column up to the level where it is laterally braced (by beams and/or deck).
Gravity Column Design Report
The Column Number has been added to the Gravity Column Design report. Previously only the column grids were listed.
RAM Frame Member Forces Report
When the Member Forces Reports are printed out for members selected using the Fence or All commands the reports are now ordered by Frame Number, Story, member type and member number.
Hanger Error Message
If a hanger is modeled such that it has no supporting member, the program gives an error message and exits the Framing Tables phase of the analysis (rather than merely crashing the program).
Verco N3 Formlok Deck
The Verco N3 Formlok deck profile has been added to the ramdecks.dck file, for use with composite beam design in the United States.
Some program errors have been identified in V14.06.x and corrected for Version 14.7. Corrections made to graphics, reports, Modeler functions, program crashes, etc that were considered minor are not listed here. The noteworthy error corrections are listed here in order to notify you that they have been corrected or to assist you in determining the impact of those errors on previous designs. These errors were generally obscure and uncommon, affecting only a very small percentage of models, or had no impact on the results. The errors, when they occurred, were generally quite obvious. However, if there is any question, it may be advisable to reanalyze previous models to determine the impact, if any. In each case the error only occurred for the precise conditions indicated. Those errors that may have resulted in un-conservative designs are shown with an asterisk. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
DYNAMIC LOADS ON FOUNDATION SUMMARY REPORT*: On the Foundation Loads Summary Report, dynamic loads were reported incorrectly for the case where two or more members intersect at the foundation node. Previously the modal results were combined using CQC or SRSS as specified for each member at the node individually and then those results were algebraically summed; this is incorrect for dynamic loads. Now the modal results for all members are algebraically summed for each mode, and then the modal results are combined using CQC or SRSS as specified.
Effect: The effect of this error was usually small and conservative but in the case of sloping columns or intersections of braces, the forces reported could be significantly incorrect and possibly unconservative.
MOVE GRIDS: The Move Grids command would not move secondary framing associated with members attached to moved grids.
Effect: Secondary beams had to be moved individually.
Framing Tables – Gravity Loads
INCORRECT SLAB EDGE LOADS*: In rare cases the slab edge loads applied to edge beams that had been offset from the centerline of columns using the Layout – Beams – Offset command were incorrect, either very large or very small.
Effect: Incorrect beam loads in very rare case that only occurred on some beams that had been offset.
STEEL COLUMN LOADS*: If a steel column supported members on a level that only had two-way concrete slab but was not supporting any of that two-way slab directly or indirectly (i.e., a concrete structure with miscellaneous steel columns that were part of exposed framing outside the slab perimeter), any user-applied line or point loads on the exposed framing members were missed in the steel column design.
Effect: For this very rare configuration the steel columns may have been designed for loads smaller than actual.
MISSING POINT LOADS*: If a layout was used on multiple stories and had open beam loops under one-way deck (i.e., perimeter beams didn’t create a complete loop under the slab edges) then user point loads on beams at these layouts were getting ignored in the analysis. This is rare situation because in general one-way decks are supported by closed beam loops underneath.
Effect: The member design for beams with missing point loads was un-conservative in this rare case.
CHINA GB50009 LIVE LOAD REDUCTION*: A 20% reduction was being applied to Storage Loads for China GB50009; it should only be 10% per Clause 184.108.40.206(2).
Effect: Storage Live Loads were being excessively reduced under China GB50009.
RAM Steel Beam
CANTILEVER BEAMS: If the design of a composite beam was controlled by the deflection of the tip of the cantilever, the program may have selected a larger beam size than necessary; it may have rejected a beam size that would have worked if sufficient studs were added to the backspan.
Result: Sizes selected for beams with a cantilever may have been larger than necessary.
CANTILEVER BEAM: When a cantilever beam had a very large uplift load on the cantilever resulting in the maximum positive moment being at one of the supports the design values were garbage.
Effect: Garbage in report. Now the beam is designed as a noncomposite beam.
BEAMS DESIGNED BY 3RD PARTY PROGRAM: When issuing Design All in Steel Beam, specialized beams that were design by 3rd party programs such as Fabsec and imported into Steel Beam were erroneously included in the design process. These beams caused error messages to be included in the Design Error report even though these beams should not have been designed within the Steel Beam program.
Effect: These design error messages made it difficult to find the real design errors of beams designed by Steel Beam and, if there were a large number of 3rd party beams, made the report quite large.
PARTIAL COMPOSITE STUDS: When a user-specified beam size failed the program sometimes listed more studs required for Partial composite than for Full composite.
Effect: This had no impact on the design; it was erroneously showing the number of studs that it was investigating before determining that the beam could not be made to work. All section property calculations were based on the limiting value of Full composite.
KINGSPAN MD 50-V2 DECK: In the RAMUK.DCK deck file the properties for Kingspan MD 50-V2 incorrectly listed the depth as 50mm; the correct depth is 51mm.
Effect: The additional 1mm of distance from top of beam to the concrete on the deck was not considered in the composite design of the beams.
SMARTBEAM DEFLECTION*: When a Smartbeam is forced to be noncomposite because an adequate number of studs will not fit on the beam the program bases the design on the noncomposite section properties. However, the program was erroneously using a Dead Load deflection value of 0.0 when calculating the Net Total Deflection.
Result: The check for Net Total Deflection used an incorrect deflection value.
Note that an enhancement has been made to the design warnings for this: Design warnings are now given for Smartbeams that are forced to be noncomposite because the required number of studs will not fit on the beam.
STEEL JOIST WITH NON-UNIFORM LOADS*: Steel joists with non-uniform loads designed using the 64 bit version of the program resulted in designs that were different from the 32 bit version of the program.
Effect: While a 32 bit version of the program designed steel joists with non-uniform loads correctly, the 64 bit version gave incorrect designs.
BS5950:2000 CLASS 3 AND CLASS 4 COMPOSITE BEAMS: The program only allows Class 1 and Class 2 beams to be designed as composite beams (the methodology necessary for Class 3 and Class 4 sections has not been implemented). There was an error in the program in the classification of the web, resulting in Class 3 and Class 4 webs being classified as Class 2, and the beam being designed as a composite beam as if it was a Class 2 section.
Effect: Beams with Class 3 or Class 4 webs were designed as composite beams as if they were Class 2 sections, rather than being rejected as composite beams and designed as noncomposite beams.
RAM Frame – Analysis
BEAM QUARTER POINTS FOR CANTILEVER ENDS: If a beam had a cantilever end, the displayed "Net" deflections for quarter points within cantilever end were not correct.
Effect: Displayed values on screen were not correct for those shown within cantilever ends.
WIND EXPOSURE DIALOG: In the Loads – Exposure command, if the user selected option to Use Specified Values for the Building Extents, entered values, and then subsequently made changes to those values, the program did not keep the revised values, it reverted back to the values initially entered by the user.
Effect: Subsequent changes to the values initially specified by the user for the Building Extents were ignored. Note that no error occurred if the option to Use Calculated Values was selected.
RBS ASSIGNMENT AND REMESHING: If an RBS connection assignment was modified by toggling between the options to Use Reduced Section Properties in Analysis and Use Full Beam Section Properties in Analysis, the program failed to re-mesh the walls and floors.
Effect: Mesh and beam nodes may not have been at the correct location. The impact on the analysis and design results was minor, if any.
US SEISMIC LOAD CASES: In the Loads – Load Cases command the program displayed the wrong load case dialogs for the older US seismic design codes when seismic load cases where created. They were ASCE7-95, ASCE7-93, BOCA96, BOCA93, SBC97, SBC94, UBC97, UBC94.
Effect: Wrong load case dialog was shown.
BUILDING STORY SHEARS FOR MODELS WITH LATERAL HANGING COLUMNS: When calculating the shears reported in the Building Story Shear report, the program was not correctly handling shear in hanging columns that hung from the slab (rather than from a beam). The shear in hanging columns was added to the story below instead of above.
Effect: Reported building story shears may not have been correct for stories with lateral hanging columns that hung from the slab. This only affected the Building Story Shear report.
FOUNDATION RESTRAINT AT CROSS-BRACE NODE*: If an X-brace was modeled by modeling a pair of V-braces at one level and a pair of inverted V-braces at the level below and then the beam was deleted (resulting in an X-braced configuration with the braces connected to each other where they cross), a Foundation restraint was assigned to that node, preventing that node from translating.
Effect: In a very rare configuration the node at the intersection of the four braces was fixed against translation, and hence there was no deformation in the frame at that node.
RIGID DIAPHRAGM WITH TWO-WAY DECK*: If a diaphragm included a two-way deck, the diaphragm was meshed for gravity load cases in order to have a proper two-way load distribution. If that diaphragm was also defined as Rigid for lateral analysis, the program correctly considered the diaphragm rigid for lateral action but also included diaphragm out-of-plane stiffness in lateral analysis.
Effect: In some cases it was observed that including the rigid diaphragm out-of-plane stiffness for lateral analysis made the model stiffer, and hence reduced drifts.
FORCE DIAGRAM DISPLAY ON HANGING COLUMNS: Force diagrams were not properly drawn at face of columns for hanging columns.
Effect: Graphics only
NBC OF CANADA SEISMIC: In the calculation of story forces per NBCC 2005 the user has the option to specify a value of Mv or to have the program use the value given by Table 4.18.11. When a value was specified the program improperly used that user-defined Mv value, rather than Mv=2.0, in the 220.127.116.11.2 exception equation. The user-defined value of Mv should only be used in the main equation of 18.104.22.168.2, not in the exception.
Effect: If the user specified a value of Mv that value was used in the exception, which may have resulted in a conservative estimation for base shear (higher base shear).
ANALYSIS RESULTS DIAGRAM: In the Process – Results – Analysis Results Diagram command, for columns with rigid end zones and column moments plotted at column-face the column moment plotted at the column face was incorrect.
Effect: Possibly incorrect column moment diagram at column face. The remaining part of the moment diagram was correct. This error was a display error only and did not affect the designs or reports.
TRANSFER COLUMN LOADS: For a transfer gravity column supporting a two-way deck above and sitting on a two-way deck below, a user-specified point load on the top of the column was applied twice: once to the slab above and again to the slab below, resulting in a doubling of the effect of the load on the lower slab.
Effect: For this rare case of a transfer column supported by the slab, the effect of user-specified point loads applied to the tops of the gravity columns was doubled for the supporting slab.
COMBINED MASS*: In the Loads – Masses command the assignments to combine diaphragm masses using the Combine To command were lost whenever an Analysis was performed.
Effect: Masses were not combined as specified by the user.
STORY DIAPHRAGM DIALOG*: If a diaphragm type was changed using the Criteria – Diaphragms command and then changes were made in either the Loads – Masses command or the Loads – Gravity Loads command, the changes made to the diaphragm type in the Criteria – Diaphragms command were lost.
Effect: Diaphragm type changes were not preserved if the aforementioned sequence of steps were performed.
ASCE 7-10 SEISMIC LOAD CASE REPORT: If the seismic load case was created for DRIFT provisions, the calculated seismic loads correctly considered DRIFT related special conditions (not subject to the minimum value of Cs given by Eq. (12.8-5)), but the Loads and Applied Forces report listed a value for Cs-min, implying that it was applied.
Effect: The calculated loads that were used in the analysis were correct, but the report incorrectly implied that the forces were subject to the minimum given by Eq. (12.8-5). This only affected Loads and Applied Forces report when the DRIFT provisions were selected for the generated loads.
BEAM FORCE/MOMENT PLOTS FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS: For the following conditions the plotted force/moment diagrams for dynamic load case were not correct:
Run analysis with one dynamic load case and plot results.
Run dynamic + dead (or other) load case and plot results.
Run dynamic load case again and plot results.
The results plotted may not have been correct.
Effect: This is only an issue for plotted diagrams for dynamic member forces if the above conditions are met. Other reports (and member forces) are not effected with this issue. Forces/moments are still OK for design.
DISPLAYING REACTIONS IN LOAD COMBINATION MODE: Displayed reactions for load combinations were not correct if all of the following conditions were met: If there was more than one member at a foundation node and if these members had different "Frame Number" assigned and if reactions for Load Combos were displayed without selecting "Show Reactions for All Nodes" option.
Effect: This is a graphics related issue. Values given in the reports were correct.
GRAVITY WALL STIFFNESS: The program applied full "out-of-plane stiffness" for gravity walls even if "Include Out of Plane Stiffness (Bending)” option was not selected in Criteria dialog.
Effect: This bug manifests itself only if gravity walls are included in analysis and if "Include Out of Plane Stiffness (Bending)” is not selected.
USER-SPECIFIED STORY FORCES AND DIAPRAGM SETTINGS*: If changes were made to the slab edges such that a diaphragm was split into two or more diaphragms, user-specified story forces and the Diaphragm criteria data on combining masses for that story were lost. In some cases merely making major changes to an individual diaphragm could also cause this to occur. Previously no warning was given that the data had been cleared. Now a warning message is given instructing the user to review this data because of changes to the diaphragms.
Effect: No warning was given that data had been reset.
RAM Frame – Steel Seismic Provisions
INCORRECT LOAD COMBINATIONS: Sds and Omega defaults were wrong in certain circumstances causing incorrect load combinations.
Effect: Sds and Omega had to be corrected and combos regenerated to correct this problem.
BRB STEEL CORE CHECK: When the Steel Core check was governed by an axial tensile force, the load combination and axial force were not correctly reported.
Effect: A report error only, the report showed an incorrect load combination and axial force when the governing load combination was a tensile axial force.
AISC 341-10 ASD SCBF EXPECTED BRACE STRENGTH: The expected strength, RyAsFy, for SCBF braces was erroneously divided by 1.5 for the AISC 341-10 ASD code.
Effect: While the required connection strength under the AISC 341-10 ASD code correctly reported a reduced expected strength by a factor of 1.5, the required brace strength section of the report incorrectly also reduced the expected strength by 1.5.
EMH LOAD COMBINATION: Seismic provision ASD load combinations used in evaluating SCBF and BRBFs having transient loads used an incorrect coefficient of 0.7 rather than 0.525 on the Emh term.
Effect: While all other load combos were correctly evaluated, Emh combinations that included transient loads applied an incorrect factor on the Emh term.
AISC 341-10 ASD SMF COLUMNS - EQN E3-1: The reported ratio for Equation E3-1 was incorrect for the AISC 341-10 ASD code check.
Effect: Although all other member code checks were correct, Mav used in the sum of the projections of the expected flexural strengths of the beams in Equation E3-1 was incorrect.
SCBF BRACES - AISC 341-10 ASD*: The expected force in compression for SCBF braces used in the special analysis requirements of F2.3 under the AISC 341-10 ASD code was incorrect.
Effect: An incorrect expected brace force in compression for SCBF braces under the 341-10 ASD code resulted in an incorrect Emh result from the special analysis requirements of F2.3 for SCBF columns and incorrect unbalanced forces for SCBF beams. The error only occurred for ASD, not for LRFD.
RAM Concrete – Analysis
WALL SELF-WEIGHT*: When a layout type was used on more than one level, in the calculation of the wall self-weight the program used the Story height of the top-most occurrence of that layout type, rather than using the Story height at the level being considered.
Effect: The calculated gravity wall forces were incorrect if the story heights varied for the stories that used the same layout type. No error occurred if the story heights were all the same for each story using that layout type.
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY: An incorrect value for the modulus of elasticity of concrete was used when the Eurocode was the selected code.
Effect: Minor differences in the analysis results.
AS 3600-09 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY*: The calculation of the Modulus of Elasticity, Ecj, was based on the value of f’c rather than the corresponding value of fcmi. The calculation now conforms to Section 3.1.2 and Table 3.1.2.
Effect: Slightly incorrect value of modulus of elasticity was used in the concrete analysis when AS 3600-09 was selected.
RAM Concrete – Beam
BEAM SHEAR*: The provisions in ACI 318-11 section 22.214.171.124 were not implemented.
Effect: The hoop spacing may have been incorrect.
RAM Concrete – Column
COLUMNS WITH CIRCULAR HOOPS*: The provision in ACI 318-11 section 126.96.36.199 requiring the minimum number of longitudinal bars in columns with circular hoops to be six, was not enforced.
Effect: Columns with circular hoops may have been designed with fewer longitudinal bars than required.
ACI 318-11 SECTION 188.8.131.52*: The changes made in ACI 318-11 Section 184.108.40.206 were not implemented.
Effect: Columns with circular hoops may have been designed with fewer than the minimum number of six longitudinal bars.
RAM Concrete – Shear Wall
COUPLING BEAMS: When a coupling beam was directly below an opening in a wall with a lower concrete grade than the wall in which the coupling beam exists, the grade of the wall above was used for the design of the coupling beam.
Effect: Coupling beam design may have been based on the wrong concrete properties (those of the wall above rather than of the wall in which the coupling beam occurred).
CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION VIEW/UPDATE: In the View/Update command for continuous foundations, if changes were made to the longitudinal top bars and then a different bar type was selected before selecting Redesign, the changes were not saved.
Effect: User data not saved.
CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION VIEW/UPDATE: In the View/Update command for continuous foundations the value displayed adjacent to the diagram control for Provided Reinforcement was incorrect.
Effect: Data did not match the value in the grid above and was incorrect. This was misleading but did not affect the design.
FOUNDATION: The top bar cover was calculated using ACI 318 Section 7.7.1(a), Concrete cast against and permanently exposed to earth, instead of Section 7.7.1(b), Concrete exposed to earth or weather.
Effect: The top bar cover was greater than necessary.
Export to RAM Concept
FORCES EXPORTED TO CONCEPT*: Forces on Mat Foundations exported to Concept did not include the forces from braces if the mat property polygon was raised or lowered. (Note that forces were correct if only the mat perimeter were raised or lowered).
Effect: Foundation design in Concept did not include all loads on the mat and therefore could be unconservative.
DISABLED MODULES: After editing an embedded Concept model and closing RAM Concept, the module buttons in RAM Manager remained disabled. No other modules could be invoked until the RamManager.exe task was ended from the Task Manager.
Effect: Unable to run other modules after invoking the link to RAM Concept. The problem was isolated to certain machines.
COLUMN FIXITY*: When creating a new ISM repository or when updating an existing ISM repository, the fixities at the top and bottom of the columns may have been swapped.
Effect: Potentially incorrect column fixities exported out to ISM.