|
|
|
|
|
It is now possible to enter an eccentricity separately for each load, to model for example the situation where some loads are transferred to the column from a beam resting on the top of the column and others enter via a bracket on the side.
This feature eliminates the need for a message box to appear reminding you that eccentricities apply to all loads, which many users found annoying.
Note that the Auto-eccentricity feature (Feature 17 from Version 10, below) applies to all loads, so that you do not have to set this checkbox for each load on the member. In most cases, when an eccentricity that is a percentage of member width is applied, it is required to be applied to all loads.
In the Analysis diagram, the program now shows the points where the moment and shear is zero. This is useful for multi-span beams when zero moment points are allowed to be considered the terminal points of lateral support distances.
The program no longer reminds you every time you change the joist spacing that the tributary width of area loads supported by the floor has changed. Users found this message more annoying than informative.
The word "Line" has been added after "Trapezoidal" and "Triangular" load distributions, in the Load View input, to show that these types of loads are line loads and not area loads.
Concept mode was not transferring uplift point reactions from columns or other beams to supporting beams, so that these reactions did not appear in the supporting beams when transferred to beam mode, or in the reactions at the base of other columns supporting the beam. The reactions were not being accounted for in the design of the beam and supporting members.
When a column supports a beam, which in turn supports another column at the same location, and the beam is exported from concept mode to beam mode, the upper column load was not being included in the bearing design for the beam. Now the upper reaction is transferred to the beam first, then to the supporting column below.
When Full Span was selected as the span input type, applied moments were not included in the loads analysis and the beam would not be designed for the affects of these moments. This could also happen for other span type input fields, but only if the applied moment was entered after a design was already performed once. This has been corrected, and user applied moments are now always included in loads analysis and design.
If the critical load combination for uplift loading was not the same as that for downward bearing, the program was using 1.0 as the self-weight component of the uplift load combination rather than the correct 0.6. This has been corrected.
A point load in the region over the fixed bearing length of the rightmost support, but to the left of the support point, was included in shear and moment analysis over the design span rather than going directly into the support. Because of the proximity to the support point the moment due to these loads is not high, so this caused only an extremely minor difference in the magnitude and location of the maximum moment point. There is no effect on shear design because the effect of these point loads is neglected due to 3.4.3.1. Bearing design was not affected because the effect of these loads was included in the reaction via loads analysis.
This has been corrected and these point loads are now considered for bearing reactions only.
If a point load located close to the end of beam followed a partial uniform line load, partial uniform area load, triangular load, or a trapezoidal load in the sequence of input loads, the point load was deleted when the other beam dimensions like bearing length, span length, span type, etc. were changed. This has been corrected.
The location of the dot in the point of interest view and the scale drawn at the bottom did not properly consider the input span methodology, and were shifted relative to the actual values by the ½ the width of the support for full span and clear span inputs. This has been corrected.
In the Load Table for the Analysis results, Design Summary results, and the old-style text output for Design Check results, the program was showing e;g. 9 instead of 9.00 for the load magnitude, and in the Analysis results, showing the wrong number for tributary width. These problems have been corrected.
For both area loads and concentrated loads, the program is now showing the units for tributary width in the Load Table itself rather than in the note below indicating that the column is for Tributary width for those loads. Previously, there was inconsistency between concentrated and area loads in that they use different units (m vs mm or ft. vs. in)
In the loads tables, "plf" and "kN/m" were appearing as the units fir concentrated loads rather than "lbs" and kN. This has been corrected.
Under the Loads Output table, there was a note referring to Table 4.2.3.2 from the Canadian version of the program that mistakenly found its way into USA version. The message appeared when wind load, snow load or earthquake load exists, and has been removed.
If a point load is added after any partial UDL, partial area load, or UDL, in the Load list in the Analysis results the start location of the point load is given in mm or inches rather than meters or feet.
When the setting to calculate the total deflection based on IBC Table 1604.3 deflection factor Use L+0.5D for deflection (Note d) is specified in Loads View, a factor of 1.0 rather than 0.5 appeared in the CALCULATIONS section in the Design Check page and in the deflection analysis diagram.
The total deflection was being calculated correctly when the setting is selected, so this was a display issue only, and has been corrected.
In column load view, the program displayed b beside the loaded face of the member regardless of whether it is loaded on the b- face or d-face according the Load Face input in column view. This has been corrected and d is shown for d-face loading.