Skip to Main Content
RAM Structural System Ideas

Welcome to the RAM Structural System Ideas portal. The purpose of this site is to post ideas for enhancements and new features. We value your feedback and our team regularly reviews your suggestions for consideration in future releases.

You have 3 options for providing feedback:

  1. Vote for an existing Idea. The popularity of an Idea helps us understand its importance to our users.

  2. Comment on an existing Idea. We want to hear your unique point of view.

  3. Add a new Idea. If no existing Idea describes what you would like, add a new one!

When you Vote, Comment, or Add an idea you will also be subscribed to that Idea and will receive status updates. Please note that we may merge or rename Ideas for clarity. Thank you for your support and feedback, it is always appreciated!

Status Needs review
Created by Guest
Created on May 22, 2023

Option to define beam unbraced length

Add the ability to explicitly define the flange bracing points or unbraced length for beam top and bottom flanges. Currently the program options are limited to only specify whether or not the deck provides flange bracing, but for structures without decking in a given the girders may unconservaitively be considered "braced" by perpendicular joists and this is not always appropriate. More flexibility to explicity define flange bracing would be helpful. Many competitor programs offer this capability.

  • Attach files
  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    May 22, 2023

    As a follow-up to this request, the option to turn off the "check unbraced length" for beams seems not worthwhile to have in the program. This is unconservative in most cases. I would recommend doing the opposite, which would be "consider all beams fully unbraced" for cases where you have minimal or no diaphragm to brace the beams. It seems that most analysis software packages conservatively assume the beams to be unbraced unless the user explicitly defines bracing points, which seems like the safer way to set up the program.