You are currently reviewing an older revision of this page.
In general, the program automatically accounts for any eccentricity in the stiffness of the structure during the finite element analysis. For each structure, there is a center of rigidity (which you can report if you create a special center of rigidity load case). If the load is applied to the diaphragm eccentric to this center of rigidity location, then torsion in the structure develops.
Accidental torsion is also considered based on the percentage set under loads - masses (default is 5% of the diaphragm dimension). Currently, the application of accidental torsion is limited to rigid diaphragm analysis. A method for incorporating accidental torsion in semi-rigid diaphragm analysis is in development now.
What the program does NOT do, is amplify these torsion effects according to any specific code provisions (e.g. "Ax" from ASCE 7-02 12.8-14) . It is up to the user to account for additional torsion resulting from plan or vertical irregularities. Most people increase the mass eccentricity under loads - masses from 5% to some larger value to account for the extra torsion required by code, though user defined story forces with a modified location also work well.
For program generated seismic load cases from any modern code (e.g. ASCE 7-05), the force magnitudes are at an ultimate level.
It's important to note, however, that the drift associated with any static seismic load is the elastic deformation (δxe from ASCE 7-02 Eq 12.8-15). The user should amplify the program drift results to determine design deflection (δx from ASCE 7-05 Eq. 12.8-15). Rather than factoring the elastic deflections, calculating story drifts, and then comparing against the allowable story drift values in ASCE7-05 Table 12.12-1, a practical approach is to take the applicable coefficient (the story drift ratio) value from the table and modify it so that it can be compared directly with the drift ratio values listed in the Drift report:
Maximum Allowable Drift Ratio = (Coefficient)(I)/Cd
Also note, the vertical component of the earthquake (Ev) is handled though the generation of load combinations by increasing or decreasing the Dead load factor, it is not part of the individual seismic load cases themselves. Furthermore, increases in the seismic force required by a lack of redundancy (Rho) are only accounted for in the load factors applied to the seismic loads in generated combinations.
Note, recent changes in many building code also define Wind loads at an ultimate level. Where service level drift due to wind is needed in those cases, a reduction of the program output is required.
When creating a seismic load case suing the IBC/ASCE7 equivalent lateral force procedure, there is an option to use provision for member forces or provision for drift (see screenshot below).
The difference between these options is the upper limit of the calculated period used to calculate the seismic loads. When provisions for member forces are used, an upper limit of T = CuTa is used for the calculated period per ASCE 7-05 12.8.2. When provisions for drift are used, the upper limit on the period is not used per ASCE 7-05 18.104.22.168
No, the program is expecting a weight value for the "Mass DL" despite the name. Enter the same magnitude as the dead load typically (or dead + some portion of the live depending on the live load type and code requirements). In the Ram Frame - Loads - masses dialog we list the total weight and the equivalent mass for clarity.
On the Loads and Applied Forces report, the "Total Building Weight" is reported. This value is the sum of the Mass Dead Loads considered in the seismic analysis which can include member and deck self-weight. This is also a weight term, not a mass.
RAM SS Gravity Loads [FAQ]
RAM Frame - Masses
RAM Frame - Wind Loads FAQ
RAM Frame - Dynamic Modal Analysis FAQ
RAM Frame - Notional Loads