Base Plate Design Software

[JoshH726]

Does anyone have a recommendation for base plate design software? I know EnerCalc and RISA Base exist, but are the other software available, whether modular or stand alone? If so, do you know the costs/subscription fees? What do you use to analyze base plates with bi-axial moments?

 

[brut3]

I've used this software previously. It seemed to work well for the relatively simple base plates that I was designing. I'm not 100% sure that you can input biaxial bending on the plate; however, it looks like they have a free 15 day trial so it couldn't hurt to give it a shot. At $345 per license its relatively inexpensive too.

http://www.asdipsoft.com/products/steel/base-plate-design/

 

[UcfSE]

RAM Connection. That's the best I've used to date. I like it much better than RISA Base or Enercalc. RISA Base would be my next choice. I don't have cost info though.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I posted a base plate message to the AISC forum a couple of weeks ago, but didn't get a single response

Therefore, I'm going to piggy-back on this guys question a bit. Specifically the part where is says, "What do you use to analyze base plates with bi-axial moments?" Because that was the question I asked.

So, if any of these programs mentioned do Bi-Axial base plates then can you let me know what the basis of the calculation is. I know ALL about RISABase's FEM based biaxial solution. Currently, I'm more interested in traditional approaches for biaxial moments.

Do these other programs super-impose the two uni-axial cases together for a conservative result, or do they truly attempt a biaxial solution? Any information you can provide would be appreciated!

 

[JoshH726]

JoshPlum, is RISA ever planning on updating the interface for RISA Base? It seems to me that it is the orphan of the RISA family; eg. no cut and pasting, fixed number of basic load cases, OL1? I understand the FEA is the singular advantage of the program over some of the other competitors, especially considering bi-axial bending. But now I'm curious why the search for the older, "traditional" approaches?

 

[Qrs]

I use Ram Connection Standalone for bi-axial base plates. It sounds a lot like RISA. They check major and minor axis independently, and then do a FEM analysis for the bi-axial analysis to check the stresses in the concrete and tension in the anchors. From what I can see in the output (and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't check the plate for bi-axial bending. Does RISA check the plate stresses for bi-axial?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

JHost -

I'm asking about hand-calc methods because of the RISAConnection program and the desire to add base plates into that program. Since that program is built around hand calculations I want to make sure that I've got adequate references. I'm set for everything other than bi-axial base plates.

Chances are we will want to "integrate" Connection in some way with RISABase. Perhaps giving a user the ability to export specific combinations to the RISABase FEM analysis. Not sure yet.

I'm not 100% certain what happens to RISABase as a stand-alone product. I can't see it being eliminated because it really is the only game in town for odd ball base plate situations. But, I don't see us releasing a major overhaul to the program anytime real soon (this year). My guess is that once we get basic base plates into RISAConnection, we will decide more definitely where RISABase fits in exactly.

 

[BAretired]

Never thought much about it. Even when a base plate is uniformly loaded, it has a moment about two different cross sections. So I would be inclined to treat biaxial moments in the same fashion, i.e. as two separate calculations, one for Mx and another for My, each combined with axial effects.

BA

 

[RFreund]

I've always thought to do it how BA suggests. But now that I use RAM (sorry Josh) but there's is also an FEM approach, but they also include the strain compatibility option (see here), which I'm still a little bit in the dark on although it sounds good...

EIT

http://www.HowToEngineer.com

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Thanks RFreund, that paper will be helpful. At first glance it appears to be assuming a bi-axial (but still triangular) bearing profile. Similar to the old blodgett method. The Blodgett method is easy enough to do for bi-axial (toughest thing in finding the neutral axis). The only problem that I have is this result will not converge to the uniaxial solutions used in the AISC design guide as one moment starts to dominate over the other.

BA It sounds like you would advocate two independent checks without any interaction or combined stress calculations. Then you'd probably just sum the anchor bolt forces to come up with a maximum anchor bolt tension. It would certainly converge to the uniaxial solution as one moment dominates over the other. My main concern would be would be the cases where there is significant bending in both directions and whether an interaction ratio is warranted to combine the two directions. Let's say you're at 90% of capacity (of the plate) for each direction. It's probably not at 180% of capacity, but it is probably over stressed.

 

[TigerYum0901]

Have you ever tried this new software, midas Deisgn+?

I've received their free package last year, and they provide 30 days trial with full capability.

The software looks good for Base Plate Design.

They have website:

http://northamerica.midasuser.com/building_midasDesignPlus.aspx

seems like they have the base plate module.

-Tiger