Composite Steel Design Software

[Stress02]

Looking for suggestions on a stand alone composite steel beam design software.

I have RAM Beam but it doesn't print properly under XP and is not current with AISC values for stud capacities.

Need other sources.

 

[Lutfi]

Eagle point (now digital canal) used to make a great one.

 

[Stress02]

You mean the DOS program? Don't think that have it anymore.
Everything went windows and they are slow to develope.

Seems the rage now is full design packages with no user decisions so the guy running the gas station can run it.

That's the problem with the RAM program. You can't even put in shear connection shear values and since the program was made idiotproof, it can't be user adjusted for the current AISC reduced stud values.

 

[fleisher]

That is the rage. It is unfortunate. That is why I still stick to programs like STAAD and SAP which allow for a ton of control. I don't think either has stand alone composite beam design, but they do have it within their general programs. STAAD has a product called STAAD.etc which may have something.

 

[Lutfi]

We just upgraded to the new Enercalc and they do have a composite beam module. While I am not a big fan of the LRFD design method (due to age and being stubbornness) Enercalc offers the LRFD in their new release. I have not used the LRFD but I hear from friends that it yields more economical design than the ASD method.

Contact Enercalc and inquire.

Good luck

 

[CSEllc]

I have been using RAMSBeam. I ahve XP Pro and an HP laserjet IIP Plus (About 10 years old). The output prints just fine ( except for the loadings....the IIP+ is to old to handle the graphics.

You are correct, the programs needs to be updated for the new stud values.

I also wish it would do continuous spans. I'm not looking for 10 spans but 2-3 spans would be great.

 

[Stress02]

My ramsbeam does not print on a newer Laserjet 4050. I get funny symbols using the standard driver. If I configure a "generic/text" printer, I get some printout but the paginating gets weird.
They said they would fix that in the next go around but there was no immediate plan to get to it because of other more lucrative endeavors.
I think the improper shear connector values that are built in and not editable is a liability risk for them that they should take more seriously.

 

[Mike2005]

Dear Stress:

I apologize that we have not had an update for RAM SBeam in quite some time. However, the program should work fine for any printer and for any Windows System. Feel free to call our tech support for assistance.

In addition, I am pleased to announce that we will have a new version of RAM SBeam out this year, with all updated codes and some really nice new features such as design for stiffened or unstiffened web penetrations.

Mike Markovitz
RAM International

 

[Stress02]

Mike,
I did contact tech support and they told me to configure the LJ4050 as a generic/text only printer.
But, as I said earlier, it doesn't paginate properly.

I have requested info on when the upgrade would be available on several occasions, and was told just last week that there is no current target as another program developement is taking priority.

I guess it's a case of "what do you want for $150"?

 

[Mike2005]

Stress:

I talked to our customer support group, and it does appear we are having a problem with a few printers under XP. I will ask them to look into it again and see if we can come up with a better solution.

The reason RAM SBeam is being held up is not because other programs are more important. Rather, we are working hard to put new features into RAM Steel right now, after which we use that new code to create the RAM SBeam version from that.

I apologize for the problems on the printer. We will work on getting the new version out as soon as we can.

Mike Markovitz
RAM International

 

[Taro]

Stress02,
I don't have a solution for your printer problem, but I can offer a work-around for the stud strength problem. Use the next smaller stud diameter when you have a single stud in a perpendicular flute. For 5/8" vs. 3/4" studs, this will conservatively result in a 30% strength reduction instead of the code-required 25% reduction. Not the ideal solution, but it will work in a pinch.