闪电联盟 - Powered by phpwind

离线pony8000

UID: 125

IT资讯组

发帖: 53488

今日发帖

最后登录: 2025-07-09

只看楼主倒序阅读使用道具楼主发表于: 2023-04-18 22:14:57

自助获取论坛邀请码

RAM Structural System CONNECT Edition 2025| 2.6 Gb

The Structural Products development team is pleased to announce the availability of RAM Structural System 2025 Patch 1 (25.00.01.16). This software provides you a complete solution for analysis, design, drafting, and documentation for steel and concrete buildings, foundations, and even individual structural components; all in compliance with your local building codes.

RAM Structural System 2025 Patch 1 (25.00.01.16) - Release Date: June 2025

Error Corrections: This version corrects some significant errors, described below. We know errors are disruptive, we apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

General
REPORTS - PRINTER OPTION: This option was not working in version 2024 and 2025. This option should direct the report to a selected printer without any preview. This functionality is restored in version 25.00.01.
Effect: Reports had to be previewed to screen first.

Steel Beam
COMPOSITE JOIST DEFLECTION LIMIT: The live load deflection criteria limit imposed on Composite Joists was L/360. The general deflection criteria limits set by the user in the Deflection Criteria dialog box were not utilized in design but still shown in the report.
Effect: Although the design of composite joists were correctly performed, and the live load limit of L/360 was enforced, the design report erroneously showed the user set deflection criteria limits. Only the live load limit of L/360 is enforced.

Steel Column
BASE PLATE SUMMARY REPORT CODE MISMATCH: When using AISC 360-16 or AISC 360-22 LRFD design codes for base plates, the Base Plate Summary Report was showing ASD in the header.
Effect: Report error only, the design was performed according to LRFD.

Frame - Analysis
CRASH CONSIDERING ORTHOGONAL EFFECTS: Checking the option to generate the additional load cases for Orthogonal Effects based on ASCE 7 Seismic loading causes RAM Frame version 2025 to crash. It affected various editions of the ASCE 7 code. Models with existing seismic loads including orthogonal effects were unaffected.
Effect: Crash, using custom load combinations is a work-around.

Concrete Wall
SPECIAL WALL DEFLECTION ERROR: When designing Special Concrete Shear Wall Boundary Elements per 18.10.6.2, the design displacement considered was enlarged due to an error in the drift calculation. This could lead to a required boundary element where none is actually needed.
Effect: Incorrect design warnings for walls with very small displacement.

Foundation
FOUNDATION STATUS ARROWS MISSING: Previously, the orientation arrow would be shown and colored to indicate the passing or failing status of each foundation; red if the footing failed, green if passed. In version 2025 the status arrows were missing.
Effect: Difficult to determine the passing or failing status of foundations, especially when user assigned or frozen.

FOUNDATION ASSIGN SINGLE AND FENCE COMMANDS: The Assign commands (Base Plate, Soil and Surcharge) are not working consistently when picking a single foundation or using a fence. The Assign – All options work.
Effect: Where the foundations do not all have the same settings, assignments were difficult to apply.

FOUNDATION GEOEMTRY NOT UPDATED: Previously, when the footing geometry was updated, the size on screen was immediately adjusted, but in version 2025 the updated graphics would not appear until the Foundation Module was restarted.
Effect: Difficult to confirm updated geometry.
ACI 318-19 DYNAMIC SHEAR AMPLIFICATION FACTOR (omega_v)*: For a single story wall the program used a dynamic shear amplification factor of 0.9 rather than the value of 1.0 given by Eq. (18.10.3.1.3), potentially resulting in an unconservative design. For walls where ns was greater than 6, the greater value of 1.3 + ns/30 and 1.8 was used rather than the lower value, potentially resulting in a conservative design.
Effect: Incorrect shear amplification factors required by ACI 318-19 Sec.18.10.3.1.3 may have been used in design.
CLEAR BAR COVER LISTED IN WALL PANELS PROPERTIES REPORT: Regardless of the options selected (Code or Use) or the values assigned for Clear Bar Cover in the Criteria – Design Criteria command, the Wall Panel Properties report always listed “Code”.
Effect: Report error only. The correct values were used in design, but the report always listed “Code”.
ACI 318-19 CONCRETE SHEAR CAPACITY IN WALLS: ACI 318-19 considers the gross area of concrete section to resist shear. However, the program used the effective depth ( 0.8 times the thickness) to calculate the resisting shear area as used in older versions of the ACI code.
Effect: A concrete shear capacity less than the capacity defined by ACI 318-19 Sec. 11.5.4.3 was used for design.
ACI 318 MAXIMUM TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT SPACING IN BOUNDARY*: The maximum spacing for transverse reinforcement in boundary elements when these are not required by ACI 318-19 or ACI 318-14 Sections 18.10.6.2 or 18.10.6.3 is governed by ACI 318-19 Sec. 18.10.6.5(b) or by ACI 318-14 Sec. 18.10.6.5(a). Rather than applying those limits, the program used the less stringent spacing limit requirement of ACI 318-11.
Effect: The maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement at wall boundaries may have been greater than that required by ACI 318-19 Sec. 18.10.6.5(b) and ACI 318-14 Sec. 18.10.6.5(a).
CREATION OF PANELS: When a wall type was changed from Tilt-up to Cast-in-place in the Modeler, the program saved the previous Tilt-up wall gap assignment information and may have used that to create separate panels in the cast-in-place wall.
Effect: Cast-in-place walls may have been split unnecessarily into individual panels.
Frame - Analysis
PRESSURE LOADS ON WALLS IN SI UNITS: When pressure loads are defined in SI units in the PropTable – Lateral Loads – Wall Pressure Loads command in the Modeler, an internal units conversion error results in very large pressure forces being applied in RAM Frame.
Effect: Extremely large erroneous forces are applied to the walls and analyzed.
DIAPHRAGM SECTION FORCES: The Diaphragm Section Forces report contains two sections: the first section lists discrete points locations and relative distances, and the second section lists force results at those discrete points. Depending on the direction that the section cut was drawn the results either corresponded with the order that the locations were listed or else they were listed in opposite order.
Effect: Report error only. The values were correct but may have been listed in the opposite order of the locations.
Frame – Shear Wall Forces
CHANGE SECTION CUT: Using the Assign – Section Cuts – Change command to modify a section cut caused the program to crash.
Effect: Program crash.
Frame – Steel Standard Provisions
YIELD-LINK AXIAL CAPACITY CHECK: Joint code checks for connections with Yield-Link Moment Connections on Side-A of a joint did not correctly report the overall design as failing even when the report showed a failing ratio for the axial capacity check.
Effect: Report error only. Although joint code checks for connections with Yield-Link Moment Connections were correctly performed, when the axial capacity checks for links on Side-A failed, that was properly reported for that check on the report, but the report did not list the overall design status as failing.
MISSING COMBINATION IN IBC/ASCE STEEL LRFD COMBINATIONS*: When the backspan support of a cantilever beam or a user-specified upward acting load induces negative (upward) forces on a frame member, the program creates Negative Live and Roof, and Snow load cases, indicated in the load combination generator as Ln, Rfn, and Sn, respectively. The AISC LRFD combinations in the templates for IBC 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021 were missing the combination with the negative Roof loads, Rfn, when in combination with the Roof Notional Load acting in the negative global axis direction (i.e., -X-direction or -Y-direction).
Effect: When those LRFD combinations were generated, the combination with notional loads in the positive global axis direction (1.2*D + 1.2*ND + 1.6*Rfn + 1.6*NR) was correctly generated, but the combination with notional loads in the negative global axis direction (1.2*D - 1.2*ND + 1.6*Rfn - 1.6*NR) was not generated. Note that this combination would rarely control, only if the effect of upward acting roof loads were larger than the effects of wind and seismic loads.
Frame – Steel Seismic Provisions
ASD STRONG COLUMN – WEAK BEAM EXCEPTION CHECK*: In the SCWB joint code check for AISC 341-10/16 ASD codes, the Pc calculation did not include alpha-s.
Effect: Joint checks performed according to AISC 341-10/16 ASD may have allowed the Exception of Section E.4a(a) because the program was using an incorrect Pc. The value of Pc was not reduced by the ASD factor, alpha-s equal to 1.5.
COLUMN WEB SPLICE STRENGTH: The required shear strength of column web splices designed according to AISC 341-10/16 may have been incorrect if the sizes of the columns at the splice were different.
Effect: The check for required shear strength of column web splices performed in accordance with Section E3.6g was erroneous if the columns above and below the splice were sized differently. ∑Mpc used the Zx of the column above the splice for the column below the splice.
YIELD-LINK MOMENT CONNECTION - COLUMN FLANGE WIDTH CHECK*: Joint code checks on joints with Yield-Link Moment Connections failing the Column Flange Width check were not flagged as failing.
Effect: Joints with the Yield-Link Moment Connection failing the minimum column flange width requirement were not flagged in the reports as failing.
Foundation
ONE-WAY SHEAR IN SPREAD FOOTINGS*: The Optimization process did not increase the footing thickness when one-way shear strength was less than the required strength. As a result, footings with insufficient depth may have been presented as the design, if one-way shear should have controlled the design. The design report correctly showed that Vu was greater than ϕVn, but the report did not flag that as a design error, and View/Update did not indicate that the footing failed. Although this may have rarely occurred with previous versions of ACI 318, it may have been more prevalent with ACI 318-19 where the shear capacity was reduced.
Effect: Design error when one-way shear should have controlled the design depth.

The RAM Structural System is powerful and versatile special purpose software for the analysis and design of building structures. It is useful in the design and analysis of commercial, institutional and industrial buildings. The RAM Structural System includes the following modules: RAM Manager, RAM Modeler, RAM Steel Beam and Column, RAM Frame, RAM Concrete, and RAM Foundation.

RAM Structural System Steel Tutorial

Basic tutorial on inputs for a gravity model for a steel framed building using Bentley's RAM Structural System.
Bentley Systems, Incorporated is the global leader dedicated to providing architects, engineers, constructors, and owner-operators with comprehensive architecture and engineering software solutions for sustaining infrastructure. Founded in 1984, Bentley has nearly 3,000 colleagues in more than 45 countries, $500 million in annual revenues, and, since 2001, has invested more than $1 billion in research, development, and acquisitions.

Product: RAM Structural System
Version: CONNECT Edition 2025
Supported Architectures: x64
Website Home Page : www.bentley.com
Languages Supported: english
System Requirements: Windows *
Size: 2.6 Gb

* System Requirements: