RAM Structural System CONNECT Edition Version 16.00.01 CL Release Notes
Release Date: February 18, 2019
This is a patch version to V16.00, prompted by two obscure defects that when encountered, although rare, had a big impact. Several other defects have also been corrected.
This is an Appendix to the V16.00 Release Notes. See the Release Notes for V16.00 for important information not contained here.
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.
Some program errors have been corrected for this version. 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 unconservative designs are shown with an asterisk. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
LOAD CASE CORRUPTION: For models containing load cases with very long "Type" labels, the load case data was corrupted when the database was converted from an older version to a newer version. This was rare, but when it occurred it was usually associated with Merged Load Cases.
Effect: The model was unusable in RAM Frame. Note: The model can be fixed by reconverting from the original model.
RAM STEEL BEAM FAILED TO LAUNCH: On some machines CONNECT Licensing was causing the RAM Steel Beam module to crash when it was launched.
Effect: RAM Steel Beam module couldn’t be run.
RAM Steel Beam
AISC 360 STUD DUCTILITY: In a very rare moment configuration the program may have given a design warning indicating that the beam "Cannot fit enough studs to satisfy Commentary requirements for stud ductility.", even when the beam was an optimized size. The program was correctly designing the beam and studs but was incorrectly issuing the warning message.
Effect: Correct design but incorrect design warning. Note that when that message was given it was almost always correct, except for the rare moment configuration case.
RAM Steel Column
CAN/CSA S16-09/14 HSS COLUMN OPTIMIZATION*: When the Rectangular or Circular HSS shape was investigated according to the CAN S16-09 and CAN S16-14 codes, the program failed to optimize a size.
Effect: Columns assigned a Rectangular or Circular HSS shape could not be optimized to the CAN/CSA S16-09 and CAN S16-14 design codes. In determining the design fy, a wide-flange shape criteria was erroneously considered rather than that of a rectangular or circular HSS shape.
RAM Concrete Shear Wall
SECTION CUTS: In some cases (random), the program didn’t allow a section cut to be made at the location specified by the user.
Effect: Section cut couldn’t be made at the desired location.
RAM Frame – Analysis
USER-DEFINED SEISMIC LOAD AND OTHER ON SEMI-RIGID DIAPHRAGM*: When a user-defined Seismic load (or user-defined Other type load) was applied to a semirigid diaphragm, the center of mass information was incorrectly considered.
Effect: Applied load on a semi-rigid diaphragm did not accurately reflect eccentric loading for the aforementioned load cases.
TWO-WAY SLAB AT FRAME WALLS SUPPORTING GRAVITY WALLS AND COLUMN ABOVE*: Two-way slab deflections at lateral frame walls that supported gravity walls or columns above were incorrect. This was because the mesh generated for the two-way slab and the mesh generated for the lateral wall were not compatible (i.e., the slab and the wall were not connected to each other at the same mesh points). This occurred only for the slab overhangs (slab edges).
Effect: Incorrect interaction between lateral wall and slab for the slab overhang portion, when the wall supported a gravity wall or column at locations along the wall other than the wall ends.
WIND LOAD ON SEMI_RIGID DIAPHRAGM: In very rare cases, the program projected large wind loads on slab edges where tangent to slab edge geometry is close to almost zero.
Effect: Very large point loads were applied at locations where tangent to slab edge geometry is close to almost zero.
EN 1991-1-4 WIND: Wind forces were not calculated if Distance to Sea was specified as greater than 100km or Distance in Town was specified as greater than 20km. Figure NA.3 of the UK National Annex was implemented, but that figure only gives values up to 100 km. Figure NA.4 was implemented, but that figure only gives values up to 20 km. However the figure indicates “≥ 100”, so for Distance to Sea greater than 100 km, the value for 100 km is used. Similar for Distance in Town.
Effect: Wind forces weren’t generated for values greater than 100 km or 10 km, respectively.
DIAPHRAGM FORCES: The program returned an error when diaphragm forces were calculated for a user-defined cross-section over a diaphragm in which all members were lowered or elevated by the same amount. Note that for this case the diaphragm was still horizontal because all members were lowered (or raised) by the same amount
Effect: The program didn't calculate cross-section forces for the diaphragm with the aforementioned configuration.
ANALYSIS RESULTS DIAGRAM: For beams with SidePlate connections, the analysis result diagram plotted the force\moment diagram incorrectly within the rigid-end-zone locations at the ends of the beam.
Effect: The defect was only when displaying force\moment diagrams in Analysis Results Diagram dialog.
SBC 94 WIND LOAD CASES: SBC Wind Load cases did not generate correctly.
Effect: SBC 94 Wind Loads couldn’t be generated.
RAM Frame – Steel Seismic Provisions
AISC 341-16 F4.5a BRBF-V SLENDERNESS REQUIREMENTS: Beam and Column Frame Types designated BRBF-V were evaluated for slenderness using Highly Ductile rather than Moderately Ductile requirements.
Effect: Although member code checks for beam and column frame types designated BRBF-V were correctly performed, slenderness requirements under AISC 341-16 Section F4.5a were checked using Highly Ductile rather than Moderately Ductile limits.
OPTION TO INCLUDE MOMENT DUE TO SHEAR: On the Design tab in the Criteria – Design command there is an option to Include Moment Due to Shear in Column. If this option was not selected the moment was included anyway, and if the option was selected the moment was included twice (doubled).
Effect: For foundations under Frame columns the overturning moment due to the shear at the base of the column was included even if the option wasn’t selected, and doubled if the option was selected, resulting in over-sized footings.
REQUIRED MOMENT CAPACITY*: For a very rare configuration the program correctly gave a design warning, but incorrectly listed an infinite value for the moment capacity for footings that had a part under tension due to uplift and then graphically showed the footing as passing.
Effect: Very rare situation, and a warning message was given when the footing was designed, but the footing was subsequently displayed as passing.
ACI REINFORCEMENT SPACING WARNINGS: When checking spacing requirements for user-specified bars in spread footing, incorrect bar spacing messages may have been given.
Effect: Incorrect warnings given for user-specified reinforcement.