Release Date: November 14, 2011
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.
This version is a minor patch version, correcting some errors in V14.04.02.
Some program errors have been identified in V14.04.02 and corrected for Version 14.04.03. 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.
CUSTOM LOAD COMBINATIONS: If a model had notional loads and none of them were analyzed, no combinations were generated in the Custom load combination dialog if the selected template included notional load combinations.Effect: Limited the use of the custom load combinations. This error did not occur for Generated combinations, they were handled correctly.
DXF FLOOR FRAMING: Concrete beams were missing and concrete columns were drawn as HSS steel tubes. This was caused by some section library files not being able to be read. This has been fixed.
DXF FLOOR FRAMING*: The unfactored beam reactions shown in DXF layouts did not include the effects of Partition loading.Effect: Incorrect reactions.
MISSING WALL LOADS ON TRANSFER BEAMS*: Very rarely if a wall was not exactly sitting on a transfer beam then the program may have missed transferring the line loads from the wall to the beam.Effect: The design and analysis results for such transfer beams and other supporting members may have been unconservative. Error did not occur if the wall was modeled correctly directly on the beam.
INTERACTION COLORS*: Interaction colors for failed beams for which the design was controlled by negative bending moment were not marked "red" when the View Interaction Colors command was invoked.Effect: Although designs were correct, failed beams could not readily be identified when the View Interaction Colors command was invoked.
CASTELLATED SMARTBEAM LTB CHECK*: The lateral torsional buckling check under the ASD 9th design code was not performed for Castellated SMARTBEAM.Effect: The omission of the LTB check may have resulted in an unconservative design if that should have been the controlling limit state.
SUMMARY REPORT*: In extremely rare cases, performing a View/Update command on beams after a Summary report was generated could result in a wrong floor's beam being designed and displayed in the View/Update command. Furthermore, when this error occurred, the on-screen display of member designs would not be correct for stories above the first level.Effect: The original designs were correct. In a very rare case the displayed data may have been incorrect after the Summary report was invoked. Merely selecting a different floor would correct this error.
TEMPORARY SPLICE: If a gravity column is supported on a lateral column, a splice should occur at that level, even if the Story data does not indicate one there. This “temporary” splice was not being placed between those two levels.Effect: The column line was designed without the splice which could have resulted in an overdesigned column line.
DESIGN REPORT: Incorrect values for Pu/phiPn and phiPn were reported for column designs governed by Section H1-3 in the AISC360-05 LRFD code.Effect: Although column designs were correct, the report for column designs governed by Section H1-3 of the AISC360-05 LRFD code did not correctly show Pu/phiPn and phiPn values. The reported interaction equation however reflected the correct Pu/phiPn ratio.
WALL STRESSES: Wrong thickness was used for wall stress calculations if the wall was assigned cracked factor.Effect: Calculated wall stresses were not accurate. The analysis was correct.
RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS WITH ROTATED AXIS*: When response spectra analysis was run with rotated axis, the analysis results were incorrect. If the axis was zero (which implies that response spectra load cases are applied in X and Y directions), the analysis results were correct.Effect: Analysis results for response spectra load cases with an angle other than zero may have been unconservative.
LATERAL BEAM SUPPORT BY A HANGING COLUMN*: A hanging column was treated as a supporting member at its top end for a lateral beam, rather than at the bottom end. In doing so, the program was incorrectly setting beam support nodes. This information was used for rigid end zone calculations for beams and columns.Effect: Program crash in some models or incorrect rigid end zones were calculated for the hanging columns and beam.
SPRING CONNECTION STIFFNESS*: The spring connection stiffness value was calculated incorrectly for a connection spring if the stiffness value was calculated based on beam stiffness option.Effect: Analysis results were not valid if spring connection stiffness was calculated based on beam stiffness.
USER DEFINED WIND*: If a user-defined wind load case was specified for a level at which the diaphragm was semirigid and the user had specified the exposure limits (rather than using the calculated exposure limits), the user-specified wind load was incorrectly applied.Effect: The applied loading was incorrect and may have resulted in incorrect user defined wind forces in the lateral members. The error did not occur if the program-calculated exposure limits were used.
CRASH FOR TAKEOFF REPORT WITH SIDEPLATE: The Takeoff report crashed if a model included SidePlate connection.Effect: The Takeoff report was not available if the model included the SidePlate connection.
EBF COLUMN CHECK: A seismic provision check on a corner EBF column shared by two EBF frames resulted in a program crash if the second of the two beams framing into the column controlled in the seismic provision check.Effect: The program generated an “Encountered an improper argument” error message when a Member Code Check was performed on the corner EBF column shared by two EBF frames.
SIDEPLATE: The AISC360-05 Seismic Provisions Check for the Column-Beam Strength Ratio for SidePlate connections on the lowest story level were incorrectly performed. Effect: The program may have failed joint checks for SidePlate connections at the lowest story which may otherwise have passed. Those joint checks were correctly performed for all SidePlate connections above the lowest story level,
SIDEPLATE PROTECTED ZONE: Under the Seismic Provisions Code check, cantilevered beams with SidePlate Connections occasionally failed the Protected Zone check when another beam framed in close to – but not into – the Protected Zone region. Effect: Cantilevered beams with SidePlate connections may have erroneously failed the Protected Zone check when beams framed in close to the region of the Protected Zone.