Really surprised to see this hasn't been fixed yet. I've had several plan checkers that see "FAILED" and don't bother to look further into the actual situation.
I have to manually cover all the "FAILED" text in the PDFs and add a description saying "hanger or column cap uplift capacity is XXX". Don't really understand why it's considered a failure in the first place -- as many have said, it really should just be a warning that the support is seeing uplift and needs to be accounted for. Even a little "note" section for the supports would be helpful.
Agree with Sam. Uplift is OK and shouldn't fail the beam when we provide the proper strap/post cap/holdown.
Plan reviewers don't always understand the intricacies of this program, as they often don't have any experience with designing in it, and therefore tend to fixate on the big red "FAILED".
I agree with prior comments that the program shall stop saying the "member failed due to an excessive uplift". In reality, the member did not fail for all other checks. it is just we need to provide strapping around the top flange of the beam or hold down mechanism force at the support to keep beam and post together during sever wind storm.
This is something that the engineering team should address and take a look at.
The issue is not with removal of the support, we still need to calculate the amount of uplift in order to counteract it with a holdown or post cap.
You guys have to understand that some plan reviewers are sticklers and fixate on the "FAILED", rather than looking at the conditions and seeing that all of the other checks pass. We are dealing with bureaucrats here - sometimes all they care about is seeing the green "PASSED", numbers be damned.
the issue with the failure note is that it scares plans examiners, they are confused and so the wording has to bring attention without stating it's a failed member. I have to manually erase the wording on all sheets to minimize confusion.
I appreciate that the program provides the uplift, especially for multi-span loading (which is often overlooked), but it really shouldn't be considered a failure. And removing the uplift support is not a proper solution (that's obviously going to cause a failure with a cantilevered beam or an upward deflection failure). As many have suggested, you should be able to choose a product to resolve the uplift or, better yet, check a box / warning that uplift occurs and has been accounted for by the user.
I would like to see the software suggest a solution like a strap or something for the uplift condition instead of it saying failed on the report because we sometimes submit these reports to other people for the project.
We are planning to provide a way to automatically remove a support during the design process when a significant amount of uplift exists at a support to see if that will allow the member to pass design. We will look into options for warning users (instead of failing design) when the uplift exceeds our current thresholds.
Either way I think this should still be used as error because it notifies when hold-down straps should be considered. Just because an 'error' occurs doesn't mean you can't ignore it for your design?
Guest
Agreed. please fix.
Attachments Open full size
Really surprised to see this hasn't been fixed yet. I've had several plan checkers that see "FAILED" and don't bother to look further into the actual situation.
I have to manually cover all the "FAILED" text in the PDFs and add a description saying "hanger or column cap uplift capacity is XXX". Don't really understand why it's considered a failure in the first place -- as many have said, it really should just be a warning that the support is seeing uplift and needs to be accounted for. Even a little "note" section for the supports would be helpful.
Attachments Open full size
Christen Vigil please address this, the removal of supports is not the desired result in many cases.
Attachments Open full size
Agree with Sam. Uplift is OK and shouldn't fail the beam when we provide the proper strap/post cap/holdown.
Plan reviewers don't always understand the intricacies of this program, as they often don't have any experience with designing in it, and therefore tend to fixate on the big red "FAILED".
Attachments Open full size
I agree with prior comments that the program shall stop saying the "member failed due to an excessive uplift". In reality, the member did not fail for all other checks. it is just we need to provide strapping around the top flange of the beam or hold down mechanism force at the support to keep beam and post together during sever wind storm.
This is something that the engineering team should address and take a look at.
Respectfully yours,
Sam
SAA DESIGN GROUP
(617) 642-7185
Attachments Open full size
The issue is not with removal of the support, we still need to calculate the amount of uplift in order to counteract it with a holdown or post cap.
You guys have to understand that some plan reviewers are sticklers and fixate on the "FAILED", rather than looking at the conditions and seeing that all of the other checks pass. We are dealing with bureaucrats here - sometimes all they care about is seeing the green "PASSED", numbers be damned.
Attachments Open full size
You can turn it off in the Member Info tab, but I wish it was a universal option.
Attachments Open full size
An option has been added to the Member Info tab to allow for the removal of supports with excessive uplift during design. Please see the following Help topic for additional information: https://www.forteweb.com/Help/Content/D_Design%20Concepts/negative_support_removal.htm
Attachments Open full size
the issue with the failure note is that it scares plans examiners, they are confused and so the wording has to bring attention without stating it's a failed member. I have to manually erase the wording on all sheets to minimize confusion.
Attachments Open full size
I appreciate that the program provides the uplift, especially for multi-span loading (which is often overlooked), but it really shouldn't be considered a failure. And removing the uplift support is not a proper solution (that's obviously going to cause a failure with a cantilevered beam or an upward deflection failure). As many have suggested, you should be able to choose a product to resolve the uplift or, better yet, check a box / warning that uplift occurs and has been accounted for by the user.
Attachments Open full size
I would like to see the software suggest a solution like a strap or something for the uplift condition instead of it saying failed on the report because we sometimes submit these reports to other people for the project.
Attachments Open full size
We are planning to provide a way to automatically remove a support during the design process when a significant amount of uplift exists at a support to see if that will allow the member to pass design. We will look into options for warning users (instead of failing design) when the uplift exceeds our current thresholds.
Attachments Open full size
Why not just design your member as a cantilever?
Either way I think this should still be used as error because it notifies when hold-down straps should be considered. Just because an 'error' occurs doesn't mean you can't ignore it for your design?
Attachments Open full size
Thanks for your idea. We could add a setting that allows you to choose whether this is a warning or an error.
Attachments Open full size
yeah, or just call it a warning rather than a failure.
Attachments Open full size
how about a user overside toggle?
Attachments Open full size