Error Corrections
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 un-conservative designs are shown with an asterisk. We know these errors are disruptive, we apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Manager
WALL MODULUS OF ELASTICITY IN DATA ECHO REPORT*: A value of Wall Modulus of Elasticity assigned in the Modeler would not show correctly in Data Echo report until the model had been loaded into RAM Frame after the assignment.
Effect: Report error only. Correct value would be listed once RAM Frame was invoked.
DXF Output
CIRCULAR GRID WITH RADIAL DISTANCE OF 0.0: If a model had a Radial Grid System in which a Circular Grid was defined with a radial distance of 0.0, the resulting DXF file would not open in most CAD programs.
Effect: DXF file couldn’t be used.
GAPS BETWEEN BEAMS AND COLUMNS: If the model had not yet been analyzed, the gaps between columns and ends of beams were wrong. Also, in the Defaults Utility, the Framing Plan - Misc. options settings for the gaps between beam and column, and between beam and girder were not recognized.
Effect: Inconsistent and/or incorrect gaps in DXF.
Data Extractor
WALL GROUP FORCES: The first load case in the list of selected load cases was not included in the extracted Wall Group Forces data. Typically, this meant that the Dead Load case values were missing, although if the user selected a specific set of cases to include, the first load case in their selection would be missing from the extracted values. Furthermore, the force data from only the lowest story was included; the force data from the other stories was missing.
Effect: Wall group forces data was missing from the extracted data.
3D Viewer
PROPERTIES DISPLAY: Some properties of Type 'Other' horizontal braces did not show when selected to be displayed in the View – Members command.
Effect: No ability to verify assignments and properties for material type 'Other' horizontal braces.
Modeler
FRAME BEAM SUPPORTED BY GRAVITY COLUMNS*: If a Gravity column was modeled at the end of a Frame wall, and a Frame beam framed into that column, the Data Check failed to give an Error that the Frame beam was supported by a Gravity column. This configuration may have resulted in incorrect analysis results in RAM Frame.
Effect: No Data Check error was given for a condition that may have produced incorrect analysis results. Note that no error occurs if the beam framing into the Gravity column is a Gravity beam.
Steel Beam
DEMAND / CAPACITY RATIO - CONSTANT SHEAR JOISTS*: The strength ratio displayed in the View Update dialog for constant shear joists was the ratio from maximum moment to allowable moment, even if shear controlled the design.
Effect: Although the design of constant shear joists was correctly performed, the interaction ratio displayed in the View Update dialog box only reflected the maximum moment to allowable moment ratio. If shear controlled, the correct governing DCR was not displayed in the View Update dialog box.
DEMAND / CAPACITY RATIO - BEAMS WITH WEB PENETRATIONS: The Demand / Capacity Ratio shown in the View Update dialog box and in the display of worst interaction when the Design Colors command was invoked for beams with web penetrations designed according to US codes did not include the worst interaction from the compression tee buckling results.
Effects: Display error only. Although the design of beams with web penetrations designed according to US codes were correctly performed and the detailed report showed the worst interaction encountered, the displayed interaction in the View Update dialog box and for Design Colors did not include the worst interaction from checks done for the compression buckling of the tees. This was only a problem if the compression tee buckling of an opening controlled the design of the beam.
C-BEAM COMPOSITE WEB POST BUCKLING CHECK*: The reported demand and capacity results for the web post buckling check may not have been the worst evaluated during the member check.
Effect: Although all other limit state checks were correctly performed, the governing results reported for the Web Post Buckling check may have been incorrect. C-Beam designs governed by the web post buckling check may have been unconservative.
CASTELLATED C-BEAMS: Optimization of very long Castellated C-Beams occasionally caused the program to freeze.
Effect: Program froze while investigating the large number of openings and wider range of e. Users could not investigate the cause of the freeze using the View Update command. The optimization process should have quickly eliminated trial Dt and e configurations that did not meet preliminary checks for strength and geometry.
C-BEAM AND WESTOK STUD OPTIMIZATION: For some configurations of composite C-Beams and Westok Cellular beams, after the design was optimized, the View/Update command may have erroneously given a message that the beam failed in deflection.
Effect: An error in the way View/Update handled the studs determined in the optimization caused it to erroneously determine that the beam failed deflection.
DEMAND CAPACITY RATIO - NO DEFLECTION LIMIT: In View/Update and on-screen with the Process – Design Colors command, the deflection interaction ratio displayed for beams where no deflection limit had been set incorrectly indicated that such beams failed deflection.
Effect: If the user created a set of deflection criteria but failed to specify any limits on deflection for a particular type of beam (e.g., Composite Unshored, Noncomposite), although the beam designs for that type of beam were correct, the display of deflection interaction ratios in View/Update or when the Process – Design Colors command was selected showed such beams as failing deflection. The error was display related only.
DISPLAY OF OFFSET RECTANGULAR WEB PENETRATIONS: If a rectangular web penetration was specified to have a Position in Web of Beam offset with the option to specify the offset as a distance from the top of the beam to the bottom of the opening, the penetration was displayed incorrectly in View/Update.
Effect: Display error only. The opening would not show in the correct location in the beam graphic in the View/Update dialog.
REPORT - BEAM DESIGN - ALL*: When the Report – Beam Design – All command was invoked for models having floor layouts that had walls, the program crashed and did not generate the reports.
Effect: Beam designs were correctly performed, and individual design reports could be obtained, but the Report – Beam Design – All command failed to generate the reports for models having floor layouts with walls.
STEEL BEAM DESIGNS*: Non-composite beams designed according to IS800-2007 incorrectly determined the bending capacity of the beams assuming they were laterally supported.
Effect: The bending capacity of laterally unsupported non-composite beams designed according to IS800-2007 was determined using provisions of laterally supported members. Beam designs may have been unconservative. Optimized designs did not include the effects of LTB.
Steel Column
AISC 360-16 SINGLY-SYMMETRIC SECTIONS: For singly-symmetric shapes the program calculates Cb based on Eq. (C-F1-3) instead of Eq. (F1-1). The program used the equation correctly when checking a user-specified size; however, when optimizing the size, the program failed to apply the Rm factor when in reverse curvature bending.
Effect: When optimizing the column size using singly-symmetric shapes when the column was in reverse curvature the program may have optimized to a larger size than necessary. In those cases, a smaller size could have been correct shown to have worked, using the Analyze command.
AISC 360-16 UNEQUAL LEG ANGLES*: The value of bw used in Eq. (F10-4) was incorrect for negative values of bw (shear center in flexural tension). This resulted in an unconservative value of Mcr.
Effect: Major axis bending capacity of unequal leg angles was overestimated if lateral torsional buckling controlled and the bending was such that the shear center was in flexural tension. Note that this error is very rare, and only possible if the column was a hanger.
Concrete Analysis
CRITERIA CORRUPTION: If the user invoked RAM Concrete but then immediately exited it while the "Building Framing Tables" process was being performed, the concrete criteria, especially the Analysis Criteria would get corrupted.
Effect: Corrupt criteria that subsequently resulted in program errors.
Concrete Beam
ACI REINFORCEMENT FOR CANTILEVER BEAMS: When calculating the required moment capacity at the end of cantilevered beams for special seismic provisions under ACI codes, the moments calculated for the cantilevered section of the beam were sometimes incorrect.
Effect: ACI 318-11 Section 10.5.3 was not applied and consequently 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 was applied leading to a conservative design and resulting in excessive reinforcement.
Concrete Column
BS 8110 DESIGN WARNING: For BS 8110, for columns with Load/Capacity ratio greater than 1.0, the program reported the failure but no warning message was shown to specify the reason for the failure.
Effect: No warning message was created in the report or V/U dialog for columns with Load/Capacity ratio greater than 1.0.
Concrete Wall
SPECIAL WALL Vn: For ACI-318 the shear capacity given in ACI 318-14 Eq. (18.10.4.1) was used as an upper limit on the capacity, not as the nominal shear capacity. The ACI 318 committee reviewed this section, and indicated there will be a change to the wording to clarify that that equation is the capacity to be used, not an upper bound limit.
Effect: The shear capacity of special walls was calculated per Sect. 11.5.4 with an upper bound limit given by Eq. (18.10.4.1) instead of using the capacity given by Eq(18.10.4.1) as is the intent of the code. Earlier editions of ACI 318 were similarly impacted.
FREQUENT PROGRAM CRASHES: Some users reported frequent program crashes when designing in the Concrete Wall module. Some errors were found and corrected.
Effect: Program crash when design was invoked.
COPY REINFORCING: The Process - Copy Reinforcing command was deleting the reinforcement from the Source Member wall panel before copying the reinforcement to the Target Members wall panels.
Effect: During the Copy Reinforcing command, the reinforcement in the selected wall panel was getting cleared when it was copied.
SHEAR WALL BOUNDARY ZONES: When designing shear walls, the program may have output warnings that boundary zones of insufficient length were provided, when in fact they were sufficient.
Effect: Designs may have failed when in fact they were sufficient. This affected all ACI codes.
WALL STRESSES*: Incorrect value for SVMax was displayed for load cases, and incorrect values of principle stresses (i.e., Smax, Smin, SVMax and SAvgMax) were displayed for load combinations.
Effect: Some incorrect values of shear stress were displayed.
CLEAR COVER*: The program was not using the Clear Cover values specified in Design Criteria for BS 8110, EN 1992-1-1, AS 3600 and CP 65 codes. Instead the value of 1.5 in. was always being used.
Effect: Based on incorrect clear cover values, incorrect bar placement for the design of walls in these codes.
COUPLING BEAM DESIGN REPORT: When reporting the controlling axial loads in coupling beams the program was inconsistent in the value of phiPn that was reported. This could occur if multiple load combinations produced the same maximum Pu but different phiPn values; the reported phiPn value wasn't necessarily the smallest.
Effect: Report error only, the smallest (controlling) phiPn value may not have been reported.
EN 1992-1-1 SHEAR WALL MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT RATIO: When the wall design group was a closed shape (e.g., four walls around an elevator core), the calculated cross section area of the wall group was a negative value which resulted in a Minimum Vertical Reinforcement Ratio that was also negative.
Effect: The negative values for Minimum Vertical Reinforcement Ratio caused the program to incorrectly report that the reinforcement failed that limit.
Frame – Analysis
BUILDING SEISMIC MASS*: If Ground Level was specified at a level other than Base and if the user specified that the mass at or below that Ground Level was to be combined to a level at or above the Ground Level, the program did not combine that mass as specified, it was not combined with the level above.
Effect: For the condition indicated, the seismic mass used in the analysis was missing the mass from the level at or below the Ground Level.
INVALID ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR BEAMS WITH CUSTOM, SPRING OR RBS CONNECTION*: When a Frame beam was assigned to have a Custom, Spring, or RBS Connection Type and the option to include Rigid End Zone had been selected, if the user changed the column size after an analysis had been performed the program should have modified the node locations in subsequent analyses to adjust for the difference in column depth; this change was not being made unless some other model change forced the program to recalculate the node locations, so the program continued to use the old node locations.
Effect: Incorrect analysis results. The error was generally small if the column depths were similar, but may have been more significant if the new column size was from a different size group from the previous column size (e.g., changing from a W14 column to a W24 column, or vice versa).
FRAME BEAM CONNECTION TYPES ON CANTILEVERS: The Assign – Beams – Frame Beam Connection Type command didn’t properly allow or prevent connection type assignments to be made on beams with cantilevers and on stub cantilevers. The connection graphic was also sometimes incorrect, showing the graphic at the wrong location.
Effect: For cantilevers, in some cases improper assignments were allowed (which was then caught in analysis and/or code checking) or acceptable assignments were prohibit. The incorrect graphics made it difficult to determine what assignment was actually made.
ASCE 7 STABILITY REPORT: Calculated stability coefficient for a story with no diaphragm below incorrectly used current floor height instead of using height to nearest story below with diaphragm.
Effect: Reported story stability coefficients for story with no diaphragm below was greater than it should have been.
FRAME STORY SHEAR: In calculating frame story shears, the program mishandled shears coming from hanging columns. The reported numbers in Frame Story Shear report and displayed frame shear values on screen were conservatively incorrect.
Effect: Reported and displayed values for frame story shears were not correct if model included hanging columns.
DISPLAY OF APPLIED STORY FORCES: The program crashed when the Process – Results – Applied Story Forces command was invoked if the model included levels with no diaphragm.
Effect: Program crash.
INSTABILITY REPORTED FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGE ANALYSIS WITH FOUNDATION SPRING: If a model included foundation springs and construction stage load case was run, the program reported instability error and terminated the analysis. Foundation springs in construction stage analysis were not properly considered.
Effect: Analysis terminated with an instability error.
SIDEPLATE COLUMN MOMENTS: For columns with the SidePlate connection, if the criteria option was selected to Include Effects of the rigid end zones, the reported column moments were incorrect; the moments at the joint centerline were reported rather than those at the joint face.
Effect: Reported SidePlate column moments were incorrect when the option was selected to include the effects of the rigid end zone (that option should always be ignored for SidePlate connections, which has its own set of rules for those joints). The error did not occur if the option to Ignore Effects was selected.
SIDEPLATE MEMBER FORCES*: For frames with the SidePlate connection, if the criteria option was selected to Include Effects of the rigid end zones with a Reduction of 0%, the analysis model at the joint was incorrect, resulting in incorrect member forces and frame displacements.
Effect: Incorrect analysis results. The error did not occur if the option to Ignore Effects was selected, or if the Reduction was some value other than 0%.
SIDEPLATE CONNECTION ASSIGNED TO PINNED BEAMS*: The program created an invalid analytical model if a beam was assigned to be Pinned and a SidePlate connection was also assigned at the same end. In this case, the program failed to insert a rigid-end segment at that end as required for a valid SidePlate configuration.
Effect: The user should not have assigned a SidePlate connection to a Frame beam that had also been assigned to be Pinned, but if they did the analytical model for SidePlate was incorrect. The program now ignores the assigned fixity if a SidePlate connection has been assigned. Note that when this error occurred the analytical model was less stiff, and hence the analysis results showed greater displacements.
Frame – Steel Standard Provisions
AISC 360-16 UNEQUAL LEG ANGLES*: The value of bw used in Eq. (F10-4) was incorrect for negative values of bw (shear center in flexural tension). This resulted in an unconservative value of Mcr.
Effect: Major axis bending capacity of unequal leg angles was overestimated if lateral torsional buckling controlled and the bending was such that the shear center was in flexural tension. Note that this error is very rare.
AISC 360-16 B1 FACTOR: In the calculation of the multiplier, B1, for P-d effects, if the axial load was tension or if the axial compression aPr equaled or exceeded the buckling strength Pe1, the value given for B1 was invalid.
Effect: Instead of a value of 1.0 for members in tension, and instead of giving a warning that the axial compression exceeded the critical buckling strength, invalid values of B1 were produced, resulting in the member being listed as failing the AISC 360-16 code checks.
AISC 360 DIRECT ANALYSIS VALIDATION REPORT: The AISC 360 Direct Analysis Validation Report in Frame Steel Standard showed AISC 360-16 LRFD as the design code when the selected code was AISC 360-16 ASD.
Effect: Although AISC 360-16 ASD was selected as the design code and correctly used in design checks, the AISC 360 Direct Analysis Validation Report incorrectly displayed AISC 360-16 LRFD.
REQUIRED SHEAR STRENGTH REPORT HEADER: The joint check report section on "Required Shear Strength" showed an incorrect label for the table column header of Mpe rather than Mpr.
Effect: Although joint checks were correctly performed, the report section on "Required Shear Strength" displayed an incorrect table column header label of Mpe rather than Mpr. The reported values were correct.
EUROCODE SECTION CLASSIFICATION: For Eurocode design of compression members the program was inconsistent in the classification of parts of the cross-section when the moments were negative versus positive, with negative moments sometimes incorrectly causing the member to be classified as Class 4.
Effect: In some cases the member was incorrectly classified as Class 4, and since the program does not design Class 4 members, it was incorrectly indicating that the member failed.
ISM
WALL ECCENTRICITY: Walls that were imported to a model from ISM may not have had an eccentricity setting for the calculation of out-of-plane gravity moments that was consistent with the values specified in the Defaults Utility; it always used the option for Distance + ½ Wall Thickness.
Effect: Gravity moments were applied even if the user had specified no eccentricity in the Defaults Utility. A warning was given in RAM Frame if moments were applied and the wall out-of-plane stiffness was turned off.
RAM DataAccess
NODES*: The INodes.GetClosestNode method could return an incorrect node for INodes collections that were filtered.
Effect: The node that was returned may not have been the closest node.