RAM Structural System CONNECT Edition Update 4 Release 15.04
Release Date: February 22, 2017
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.
This version 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 Software Fulfilment web page by logging into the CONNECTION Center or the Enterprise Portal and selecting the Software Downloads icon. Perform a search for “RAM Structural System”, select any of the RAM Structural System modules (e.g., RAM Modeler; they all use the same installer), and select the latest version of the RAM Structural System.
Product Licensing FAQ:
Appendix C contains a document describing features available in the RAM Structural System to help prevent inadvertent use of unlicensed modules. Refer to that document for more information.
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.
This version contains two powerful new features that have been designated Technology Preview features. They are features that are in a state that would previously been referred to as a Beta version. These two features are Analytical Insights and SQLite database of result. It is likely that these features will continue to undergo revisions based on feedback from users. Care should be taken if these are used for actual design, because they are still in the process of being revised they have not gone through the rigorous testing process. They are being made available so that you can use them with real models in real design situations, and provide us with feedback and suggestions for making these features more useable and productive.
Analytical Insights – Technology Preview
The Analytical Insights feature analyzes your model and compares them with a set of Structural Performance Indicators (SPI). These SPI’s can be configured to conform to your office standards and practices, and prioritized according to their importance. Your model is then scored based on these SPI’s helping you identify possible changes to the model to make it more economical or constructable. See Appendix A for more information.
SQLite Database of Analysis and Design Results – Technology Preview
In order to more easily access the geometry and analysis data, this data is now written out to SQLite files. A report generator is provided that can be used to create a .xlsx file that can then be used in spreadsheets in Excel. The file can be customized to contain the information that you want made available. See Appendix B for more information.
Wind Tunnel Results Load Cases
In RAM Frame a new Wind Load case generator has been added, allowing the results of wind tunnel tests to be input (Fx, Fy, Mz, and coordinates at each level, and the percent of each of those forces to be applied as a load case), and the myriad load cases with their resulting story forces are created and analyzed. The wind tunnel load cases are specified using the Loads – Load Cases command, specifying Wind, and selecting Wind Tunnel from the list of wind load generators. The data can be entered manually or the data can be pasted in from Excel. In the Load Case control select the top Story to paste a block of data, or any story to paste a single line of data, so that the desired row of the chart is highlighted, then select the Paste icon (or Ctrl-v). In the Cases control select Case #1 to paste a block of data, or any Case # to paste a single line of data, so that the row is highlighted, then select the Paste icon (or Ctrl-v).
Mode Shape Values in Periods and Modes Report
In the Periods and Modes report the values listed for the Mode Shapes are now given in scientific notation. Previously they were listed in decimal values, which often did not give enough significant digits for the smaller values.
UK Eurocode National Annex and BS 6399 Live Load Reduction
The option in Criteria – Member Loads to perform Live Load Reduction per the UK National Annex to the Eurocode and BS 6399 has been split into two separate options. Although the Live Load Reduction methodology is identical in both, the selection in this command is used to determine the nomenclature used in the Modeler, which previously assumed that the user intended to design per the British Standards such as BS 5950, rather than per the Eurocode. This resulted in some confusion since the nomenclature is different between those two codes, particularly fck vs fcu. Now when the UK National Annex to the Eurocode is selected, the nomenclature used in the Modeler will be the same as for the Eurocode.
Eurocode and UK National Annex Design fy
In Criteria – Eurocode Factors an option is now available to specify that the Design fy rules be used based on either EN 1993-1-1 or EN 1993-1-1 UK NA. Previously the Design fy rules per EN 1993-1-1 were used, the option to use the EN 1993-1-1 UK NA rules is now available.
Eurocode EN 1991-1-4:2005 Wind and UK NA
In RAM Frame, wind load generators for EN 1991-1-4:2005 and EN 1991-1-4:2005 UK National Annex have been implemented.
Eurocode Notional Loads
Notional loads per EN 1993-1-1 can now be generated.
Eurocode Load Combinations
The Eurocode Load Combination templates have been updated to include Notional Loads in the combinations. Notional loads were added to the EN 1990:2002 +A1:2005 steel design combination template and the EN 1990:2002 +A1:2005 UK NA steel and concrete design templates.
Singapore Eurocode National Annex Live Load Reduction
An option has been added to Criteria – Member Loads to perform Live Load Reduction per the Singapore National Annex to the Eurocode.
AISC 360-10 RM Value for B2
In the AISC 306-05 specification the value of RM used in the calculation of B2 was limited to 0.85 and 1.0. This changed in AISC 360-10, in which RM is a calculated value. The command was enhanced to allow input of any value of RM between 0.85 and 1.00.
A more accurate method for calculating Cw for I-shaped members has been implemented. This will have a minor impact on designs, and only when Cw was used in the calculation of capacities.
Eccentric Loading on Semi-rigid Diaphragms
For large models the time required to perform the calculation of the loads for the eccentric load cases on semi-rigid diaphragms has been reduced significantly (from hours to minutes).
Eccentric Dynamic Load Cases
For large models the time required to perform the eigen solution analysis for dynamic load cases with eccentricities has been reduced significantly.
SidePlate with HSS Columns
At the request of SidePlate, Square HSS columns are now accommodated and pass compatibility checks for the SidePlate connection. Previously, only wide flange shaped columns were permitted with the SidePlate connection. Rectangular HSS columns are not permitted at this time. The engineer should discuss any concerns with SidePlate and verify that their connections are constructible.
SidePlate Geometric Compatibility Check
At the request of SidePlate, the geometric compatibility check that the program performs to determine if the beam flange width and column flange width are compatible has been simplified. If the column flange width is not at least 1.5” greater than the beam flange width, a warning is given indicating that the beam may be too wide and may not permit the use of the SidePlate connection. Also, previously the compatibility check gave an Error instead of a Warning, and would not proceed with the analysis. Now it is given as a Warning, and the analysis will proceed, but the engineer should discuss the condition with SidePlate to verify that it is constructible.
Seismic Provisions Joint Check Summary Report
The Seismic Provisions Joint Check Summary Report has been simplified; previously the report repeated the global general criteria under each joint summary, now it only shows the criteria data at the beginning of the report. Also, some additional pertinent criteria items have been added to that section of the report.
RAM Concrete Dependency on Steel Design Removed
Previously, for models containing both steel and concrete members, the analysis in RAM Concrete could not be performed if the steel beam and column sizes were not current. This required that if any change was made in the Model or to the Criteria, the Design-All command had to be performed in RAM Steel Beam and RAM Steel Column before an analysis could be performed again in RAM Concrete. Since the steel sizes had little impact on the Concrete analysis, this restriction has been removed. The model status shows that the designs and analysis are not strictly up-to-date, but for convenience the analysis and subsequent concrete design is allowed.
Mesh Warning in RAM Concrete
When decks don’t completely cover the slab a mesh warning is now given in RAM Concrete indicating the story and the diaphragm, and indicating that the deck properties cannot be identified and that they won’t be included in the analysis. When this warning is given the user should inspect the deck polygons in the Modeler and correct so that the entire diaphragm has slab properties.
Members Not Designated as Part of the Seismic-Force-Resisting System
Section 21.13 of ACI318-11 has extensive rules for the seismic design of gravity concrete members that aren’t part of the seismic-force-resisting system. Previously a portion of these requirements were implemented and reported; in this version these provisions are more extensively implemented and reported. These now include:
Detailing requirements when the gravity load does not exceed Agf’c/10.
Two continuous bars at both top and bottom per Section 126.96.36.199.
Stirrups to be spaced at not more than d/2 throughout the length of the member per Section 188.8.131.52.
Design shear force, Ve, determined per Section 21.5.4 by assuming that moments of opposite sign corresponding to probable flexural moment strength, Mpr, act at the joint faces and that the member is loaded with the factored tributary gravity load along the span.
Coupling Beam Effective Depth
When designing coupling beams of shear walls to the ACI design codes, the effective depth was approximated as 0.8H. The accurate effective depth for the provided bar layers is now used.
Service Request Manager
The Service Request Manager, for logging requests for technical support, is available directly from the Help – Technical Support command in the RAM Manager.
Extensive work was performed to enhance the ISM interoperability (used to import and export data between Bentley products such as STAAD, and third-party products such as Revit and Tekla). Some of the more prominent enhancements are listed here.
Gravity loads, including snow and snow drift loads as modelled in RAM Modeler can now be exported to ISM. Gravity loads in RAM Structural System consist of several load components including Construction, Dead, Live, Construction Live and Partition; when exported to ISM these are separated into individual cases. Exported Surface loads are clipped to the slab boundary and openings. Note that in the ISM viewer this provides a 3D view of the applied loads in the model.
Pile caps are now exported to ISM
Diagonal Reinforcing in shear wall coupling beams, designed in the Shear Wall module, is now exported to ISM.
Concrete shear wall horizontal bars are now exported with 180-degree hook end conditions.
Modulus of elasticity of concrete in concrete walls can be specified in the RAM Structural System either as the value determined by the code equations or as a specific user-defined value. Previously the option to use the value calculated by code was not available for the data that was exported to ISM. Now that flag is passed to ISM, which will calculate the value of the Modulus of Elasticity the same as the program does.
Some program errors have been corrected for Version 15.03. 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.
RAM Steel Beam
SHEAR AT POINT LOAD*: When the Shear at a point load location is governed by the shear slightly left of the point load, that left Shear value was not captured.
Effect: Some codes require calculation of Shear corresponding to the Moment at a given location. At point load locations, the Shear slightly left of the point load, if greater than the Shear slightly right of that point load location, was not captured as the max Shear at location of that point load. A lesser Shear value was then associated with the Moment at that location.
AISC 360 - COMPRESSION FLANGE YIELDING*: For Singly symmetric I-sections the compression flange yielding capacity determined in Section F4 for qualifying sections was incorrectly determined.
Effect: Where the governing capacity for sections evaluated under Section F4 was the Compression Flange Yielding limit, the reported capacity was incorrectly determined as FyZx rather than RpcFySxc per Equation F4-1. Note that this error only affected built-up sections where the top flange and bottom flange had different dimensions; it did not affect the design of the standard rolled I-shapes.
EUROCODE SECTION CLASSIFICATION*: Members under pure flexure were always given a classification of 1 even if they should have been assigned a higher class.
Effect: While members under axial or combined loads were correctly classified, members under pure flexure may have erroneously been given a classification of 1.
AISC 360 BUILT-UP CHANNELS WITH NONCOMPACT OR SLENDER WEBS*: The design of built-up channels with noncompact or slender webs has not been implemented in the program, but for such members the program was giving design results (erroneously), with incorrect capacities indicated in the design report.
Effect: Built-up channels with non-compact or slender webs were incorrectly designed and reports showed incorrect results. Capacities for such sections are not addressed by the Specification and the program should have indicated a warning message to the user instead. The user is now warned of the condition with a “Cannot Design” warning message, and the capacity is set to 0.0.
AISC 360 ASYMMETRIC BUILT-UP CHANNELS*: The design of asymmetric built-up channels has not been implemented in the program, but for such members the program was giving design results (erroneously), with incorrect capacities indicated in the design report.
Effect: Built-up asymmetric channels were incorrectly designed and reports showed incorrect results. The program should have indicated a warning message to the user instead. The user is now warned of the condition with a “Cannot Design” warning message, and the capacity is set to 0.0.
AISC 360 BUILT-UP BOX SHAPES WITH SLENDER WEBS*: The design of built-up box shapes with slender webs has not been implemented in the program, but for such members the program was giving design results (erroneously), with incorrect capacities indicated in the design report.
Effect: Built-up box shapes with slender webs were incorrectly designed and reports showed incorrect results. The program should have indicated a warning message to the user instead. The user is now warned of the condition with a “Cannot Design” warning message, and the capacity is set to 0.0.
AISC 360 DOUBLY SYMMETRIC BUILT-UP I-SECTION (LTB CAPACITY): The reported AISC 360 LTB capacity for doubly symmetric built up I-sections was incorrect.
Effect: Where LTB governed the design for compact doubly symmetric built up I-sections, the reported capacity was inconsistent with the requirements of AISC 360 section F2. An incorrect, but conservative, rts value was being used.
MAXIMUM FORCE FOR COMPOSITE BEAMS WITH PARALLEL DECK: For beams with parallel decks where the max number of rows that can be supported by the beam was greater than one, the program erred in its determination of the maximum force that could be provided if all the rows were filled with studs.
Effect: Stud designs for composite beams with parallel decks and which could support more than one row of studs may have been erroneous. Beams that may have otherwise passed designs may have been skipped for heavier beam designs.
RAM Steel Column
COLUMN UNBRACED LENGTH*: An incorrect unbraced length was determined for multi-story column segments (where the column extended multiple levels between levels where it is laterally braced) in the stack where the column orientation angle was greater than zero and less than 90 degrees.
Effect: Unbraced lengths for multi-story columns having an orientation angle between 0 and 90 degrees were incorrectly determined. All other columns were correctly designed.
AISC 360 W- AND C-SHAPES WITH MINOR AXIS BENDING*: Wide flange and Channel shapes subjected to minor axis bending were not correctly designed according to the provisions in AISC 360 Chapter F6 when the governing limit state was Flange Local Buckling.
Effect: For Wide flange and Channel shapes with minor axis bending, the reported bending capacities were incorrect when Flange Local Buckling governed the design.
AISC 360 - ROUND HSS WITH SLENDER WALLS*: The design of round HSS with slender walls exceeding the limit set in Section F8 has not been implemented in the program, but for such members the program was giving design results (erroneously), with incorrect capacities indicated in the design report.
Effect: Round HSS with slender walls exceeding the limit in F8 were incorrectly designed and reports showed incorrect results. The program should have indicated a warning message to the user instead. The user is now warned of the condition with a “Cannot Design” warning message, and the capacity is set to 0.0.
AISC 360 WT STRONG AXIS BENDING*: The flexural capacity reported for WT shapes was incorrect.
Effect: Under flexure, the reported capacity of WT sections did not meet Yielding requirements of Section F9-1.
AS 4100-98 VIEW/UPDATE INTERACTION: The controlling interaction reported in View/Update for columns under compression and weak axis bending was not consistent with the governing interaction shown in the detailed column report.
Effect: While columns subjected to axial and weak axis bending were correctly designed and the governing interaction shown in the column design report was also correct, the controlling interaction displayed in the View/Update dialog was incorrect for AS 4100-98. Also the reference for the controlling interaction shown in the Summary Report was incorrect.
RAM Concrete Beam
ACI SMF BEAM SHEAR CAPACITY*: Requirements for ACI 318-11 clause 184.108.40.206.a and 220.127.116.11.a (and similar clauses in previous versions) were incorrectly applied.
Effect: Shear capacity of SMF beams may have been overestimated when ACI 318-11 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124 apply.
RAM Concrete Column
ACI CONCRETE COLUMN DESIGN*: When designing columns that are part of an IMF or SMF system, that span multiple stories and are unbraced by beams at the intermediate levels, the program might have calculated the design shear requirement incorrectly. This was an issue for all ACI design codes.
Effect: Potentially incorrect design shear values when columns spanned multiple levels between braced levels.
ACI EFFECTIVE DEPTH FOR Vs CALCULATIONS*: In the determination of the reinforcement shear capacity, the effective depth did not consider the reinforcement diameter; only the clear bar cover distance was considered.
Effect: The effective depth used in the calculation of Vs was slightly larger than it should have been because it used the distance to the clear cover instead of the distance to the center of the bars. As a result the shear capacity used in design may have been slightly unconservative.
ACI GRAVITY COLUMN SHEAR DESIGN UNDER EARTHQUAKE FORCES*: In columns not designated as part of the seismic force resisting system with SDC D, E or F and whose factored gravity axial forces were greater than the specified by Section 126.96.36.199 of ACI 318-11, the referenced requirements of 21.6.4 and 21.6.5 were not checked.
Effect: The shear design of Gravity columns with SDC D, E or F may have been inadequate.
CONCRETE COLUMN: The shear force values for non-ACI codes reported in the View/Update dialog for the X- and Y-axis were switched.
Effect: The X-direction shear was listed for the Y-axis, and vice versa. This was a reporting issue only, in the View/Update dialog; the design was correct.
ACI CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATION AND VU: In the Concrete Column Design report the Controlling Load Combination listed for Transverse Reinforcement was the load combination with the largest shear, not the load combination with the largest Demand/Capacity ratio.
Effect: The design was correct but the reported controlling load combination was incorrect if the controlling combination was some combination other than the one with the largest shear.
 EN 1993-1-1 COLUMN SHEAR: In the Concrete Column design report a value of 0.0 was reported for applied shear in the minor axis.
Effect: This was a report only error; the design was correct.
RAM Concrete Shearwall
CONCRETE SHEAR WALL: When designing section cuts in shear wall, on rare occasions, the reported horizontal and vertical reinforcement ratio may have been negative and the section cut marked as failing, even though the actual provision was sufficient.
Effect: Negative sign on the vertical reinforcement ratio value may have caused the program to given an erroneous design error message. Note: Existing models may still exhibit this error. Review the Design Warnings, and if any value of Actual Ratio for the steel ratio is negative, delete all section cuts to clear the error, and reassign the section cuts.
RAM Frame – Analysis
WIND PRESSURE CALCULATION*: In the calculation of the coefficients used in the calculation of the wind pressures, some coefficients use the story building dimensions. When there was a partial level (such as a mezzanine) enclosed within the building beneath a story with a larger floor plan, the program used the partial level’s diaphragm dimensions rather than the building envelope dimensions (defined by the larger diaphragm dimensions above). Note: when there is a smaller partial level, the actual building envelope at that level is likely to be the same as the larger level above rather than the same as the smaller level.
Effect: Potentially incorrect coefficients were used in the calculation of wind pressure at levels where the diaphragm extents were less than those of the level above. This error, when it occurred, was almost always conservative. Note that after the pressures were calculated the program correctly applied those pressures to the building envelope, distributing the forces to the partial level, the level above and the level below as explained in the manual.
WIND LOADS ON SEMIRIGID DIAPHRAGMS*: Wind loads on semirigid diaphragms are applied as line loads on the windward and the leeward side of diaphragms. The program first looks for mesh points along slab edges, and then distributes the wind line load on such mesh points located along the edges. In some cases where the diaphragm mesh did not extended fully over to slab edge lines (because the option to Use Beams for Exterior Boundary was selected in Criteria – Diaphragm), the program may have failed to find mesh points along those edges, and hence, failed to apply the wind loads.
Effect: Wind loads on semirigid diaphragms may have been missed.
TRANSFER LOADS ON FRAME COLUMNS: Excessive gravity loads were applied to columns if the following conditions were met for the column: the column supported a Frame wall, and that wall supported Frame columns above. In this case, loads from the Frame columns above the wall were applied to both the wall and to the column below the wall instead of only applied to wall.
Effect: Such columns were designed for twice the gravity load than was actually applied at the floors above the wall.
SNOW LOADS ON TWO-WAY DECKS: The program miscalculated snow loads on two-way decks if it did not have a constant loading profile (i.e., snow drift). This impacted total gravity loads calculation on such diaphragms (used for P-Delta effects and notional loads) as well as gravity (snow) loading on two-way decks.
Effect: Total Snow drift loads used for P-delta and for Notional loads were not correct for the conditions indicated.
MERGING LOADS FROM PENTHOUSE LEVELS*: When upper levels are modeled without any frame members (such as for a simple mechanical penthouse roof), the program automatically merges the wind and seismic loads on those levels down to the level below so that no lateral loads are lost. This was only working correctly if the level below was a Rigid diaphragm.
Effect: If the diaphragm of the level below such levels did not have a Rigid diaphragm, the lateral loads were not merged down to that level, they were lost (not included in the analysis).
ASCE 7 STABILITY REPORT: If the analyzed seismic load case was ASCE 7-10 but the ASCE 7-05 option to generate the ASCE 7 Stability Report was selected (or vice versa) and the Importance Factor was greater than 1.0, the reported stability coefficients were not correct; they were off by the Importance Factor.
Effect: The reported ASCE 7 seismic stability coefficients were not correct if the seismic load case and the selected stability coefficient were not from the same version of ASCE 7, and the Importance Factor was greater than 1.0. The error did not occur if the load case and the Stability Coefficient code were from the same version of ASCE 7, nor did the error occur if the Importance Factor was 1.0.
BUILDING AND FRAME STORY SHEARS*: Building and frame story shear reports listed incorrect results for response spectra cases when all of the following conditions occurred:
The diaphragms were Semi-rigid or two-way decks
In the Criteria – Diaphragm command the option had been selected to Include Gravity Members in the analysis
Only gravity and dynamic cases were analyzed.
Note that if there was at least one seismic or wind load case included in the Analysis, the error did not occur.
Effect: Building and frame Story Shear reports listed incorrect results if all aforementioned conditions existed.
In the Criteria – General command the option had been selected to Exclude BRB from Gravity Load Cases in the analysis
SIDEPLATE CONNECTION WITH GEOMETRIC WARNINGS: If the beam and columns sizes produced warnings on geometric incompatibility for the SidePlate connection, the program continued the design, but produced incorrect results.
Effect: Design values calculated for the beam with SidePlate may not have been correct if geometric incompatibility was detected. The error did not occur if the sizes were compatible for the connection so there were no geometric incompatibility warnings.
HANGING COLUMNS UNDER TWO-WAY DECKS*: If hanging columns were attached to two-way decks, the reaction applied to the deck from the hanging column was incorrect.
Effect: For this unusual condition, incorrect loads were applied from hanging columns to diaphragms with two-way decks. The error was usually obviously large.
PSEUDO-FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS: The Loads and Applied Forces report listed an incorrect value for the Total applied load on pseudo-flexible diaphragms.
Effect: This was only a reporting error. The values used in design were correct.
WALL SELF WEIGHT*: The program miscalculated wall self-weight if an opening inside the wall crossed the top edge of the wall. In this case, calculated line load (due to self-weight) was not correct (less than expected).
Effect: Missing load (wall self-weight) if a wall included an opening that crossed the top edge of the wall.
BEAM MOMENTS FOR RESPONSE SPECTRA CASE*: In the Member Forces report the reported beam moments for response spectra cases were not correct if rigid-end zones were specified and moments were reported at column face.
Effect: The reported Member Forces showed wrong values at the column face of dynamic moments for beams with rigid end zones. The defect did not occur if beam moments were shown at centerline. The values displayed on screen and shown in Analysis Results diagram were correct.
RAM Frame – Steel Standard Provisions
AS 4100-98 MEMBER DESIGN FORCES*: When checking the member design capacity, the design bending moments were not necessarily the maximum moments along the entirety of the member.
Effect: When checking the member capacity, AS 4100-98 Section 8.2 requires that design moments in the primary axes be the maximum along the entirety of the member. Where the maximum moments in the two axes were not at the same location, the design used the moments at one of the maximum locations in the design rather than combining the maximum moments at the different locations together with the axial load.
CHANNEL WEAK AXIS PLASTIC SECTION MODULUS*: If the weak axis plastic neutral axis fell within the web of a channel section, the weak axis plastic section modulus was calculated incorrectly.
Effect: Potentially incorrect capacities calculated for channels in weak axis bending.
MEMBER FORCES WITH SIDEPLATE*: If a member size was changed using the Assign Size command in RAM Frame on a Frame assigned to use the SidePlate connection, the subsequent analysis was not exactly correct because the points used in the SidePlate finite element model were not immediately updated when the assignment was made.
Effect: Calculated member forces may have been slightly incorrect if different sizes were assigned to frame members with the SidePlate connection. The error corrected itself if the model was subsequently run in one of the other design modules.
AISC ASD LOAD COMBINATIONS: Some of the AISC ASD load combination templates had an incorrect factor (1.0 instead of 0.60) on the Notional Dead Load in the 0.6D + 0.6ND + 1.0W or 0.6 + 0.6ND + 0.6W load combinations. The affected templates were: AISC360_05 ASD, AISC360_10 ASD, IBC06/ASCE7-05 ASD, IBC09/ASCE7-05 ASD, and IBC 2012 / ASCE 7-10 ASD.
Effect: When Notional loads were included in the combinations with the lateral load cases the factor on the Notional dead load was 1.0 instead of 0.6 for the load combinations and in the templates listed above. The error was slightly conservative, but would only impact the designs if wind uplift was the controlling load combination.
RAM Frame – Steel Seismic Provisions
JOINT CHECKS FOR RECTANGULR HSS COLUMNS: When a Joint Check was performed on a joint at a rectangular HSS column and the SidePlate connection had been assigned, some of the reported results were not relevant to the SidePlate connection and should not have been listed. Similarly, when a Joint Check was performed on a joint at a rectangular column and the SidePlate connection had not been assigned, some of the reported results were only relevant to the SidePlate connection and should not have been listed.
Effect: For joints at rectangular HSS columns, some joint code checks were performed and reported that were not relevant to the type of connection assigned to the joint.
BEAM SEGMENT J-END: The reported J-End coordinates for the controlling segments for shear and moment for beams were incorrect when the selected system unit was either SI or Metric.
Effect: Report error only, the reported J-End coordinate for the shear and moment sections of the design report was incorrect. The beam designs were correct.
BRBF AND SCBF COLUMNS WITH HORIZONTAL BRACES: Due to the complexity of multiple beams framing into a given side of a column, the program will not perform the Seismic checks on a column that has more than four Frame beams framing into it. When determining the number of beams framing into the column the program was erroneously including Horizontal Braces in this count, so even if there were four or fewer Frame beams framing into the column, if the sum of the number of Frame beams and Horizontal Braces exceeded four the program would not perform the BRBF and SCBF column checks. As a result, there were some erroneously reported values (e.g., zero axial load in the column).
Effect: Section F2 and F4 code checks for BRBF and SCBF columns supporting more than four horizontal braces and frame beams were not performed. Now the program ignores the number of Horizontal Braces, and will not perform the checks only if the number of Frame beams exceeds four.
FOUNDATION DESIGN *: Moments created by the shear at the base of the column were not added to the foundation design forces even if the option to "Include Moment Due to Shear in Column" was selected.
Effect: The moment due to the shear in the column was not considered in the footing design. This affected all design codes.
DEAD LOAD*: If the option to use Forces on Gravity Members From RAM Concrete was selected in Criteria – Forces, the Dead load was not included in the Foundation design in some cases.
Effect: Dead load may not have been considered in design. The error, when it occurred, was obvious in the reports.
MISSING LOADS FROM BRACES ON FOUNDATIONS*: If a foundation had been lowered using the Modify Footing Elevation command, and if that foundation supported a brace that spanned across multiple levels (it did not connect to any elements on the level immediately above the foundation), the loads from the brace were not included in the design loads on the footing.
Effect: Unconservative design in the rare case described above.
MISSING DYNAMIC LOADS*: If a foundation had been lowered using the Modify Footing Elevation command, loads from dynamic load cases were not included in the design loads on the footing.
Effect: Design did not include the dynamic loads if the footing had been lowered.
ISM / Structural Synchronizer
Significant time and effort was spent improving the performance of the interface between the RAM Structural System and ISM. These corrections improve the interoperability with Bentley products and third-party programs such as Revit and Tekla. Several defects were corrected, including the following:
CONCRETE COLUMN TIES: Column ties may have been missing in an export of multistory models for all floors except the first.
Effect: Concrete Column ties were missing; this could have had an impact on consuming applications that required the ties being present for drawing production.
TEE-SHAPED CONCRETE BEAMS: The ISM export of concrete T beam with flange beam set to have a calculated flange width and flange thickness equal to the deck thickness resulted in an ISM warning of "section not set" rather than exporting only the rectangular stem of the T beam (ISM can’t currently handle Tee-shaped concrete beams).
Effect: Resultant member in the ISM Repository appears as stick figure with no section assigned; consuming application may similarly only import the T beam as a line rather than with the correct section.
CANTILEVERS: Cantilevers sometimes did not import correct.
Effect: Cantilevers incorrect in the RAM Structural System model that required some effort to correct.
STUB CANTILEVER REACTIONS*: On export, the reactions for stubs was placed on the free end rather than the column connected end.
Effect: Reactions were assigned to the wrong end; this could have had an impact on consuming analytical applications that deal with steel members.
SLAB EDGES: For certain ISM imports where modelling originated from a free form modelling application such as Revit, Slab Edge sometimes exported into Ram Structural System extending to infinity.
Effect: Slab edges that required deleting and remodeling. Note: Care should still be taken when modelling slabs in Revit to have regions snap properly and avoid very thin slivers of slab and openings in the model.