What a useless statement implementation.
First of all, you can't see why something fails on the solutions tab, so if you don't click it and check the report, you'll have no idea what went wrong.
Secondly, uplift is not a failure. This happens all the time with cantilevers and large loads, etc. That's what engineering is for, this uplift IS WHY I'm using software and not doing it real quick by hand. Allow us to select a strap from SIMPSON, maybe, I bet SIMPSON would love that. Or allow us to check ignore uplift check, to just design the beam with with calculated moments and shears and stop trying to be smarter than the user.
Thank you.
Guest
Still receiving comments from some plan reviewers about "FAILED" beams.... the solution is NOT to remove the support, we WANT the support to be there, we should be able to counteract excessive uplift with appropriate hardware and not show FAILED.
I have run into yet another issue with the beam "failing" due to excessive uplift - yet again, a plan reviewer did not understand that although the beam shows "FAILED", it was still adequate because I had provided an appropriate connector and holdown to resist that uplift.
Again, many reviewers fixate on the "FAILED" rather than using good engineering judgement. They may also have a ton of plans to review and not be checking as thoroughly as they should be.
If excessive uplift is present, the beam should pass with warnings, not fail completely.
@Christen Vigil, this is not an acceptable solution in cases where we do want to retain the calculated uplift.
When submitting reports to the city, we need to justify the counteracting of displayed with some sort of hold down. Removing the support is not conducive to this.
It would be great, if, rather than failing the beam entirely when there is "excessive uplift", that the beam passes with warnings, the warning being that a holdown is required at the "failing" support.
I don't need the "removal" of a support, I need that support to be able to support uplift. I have 3,000lb of uplift at the end of this beam due to seismic loading, and I'm going to provide an MSTC48B3 to handle this uplift. But apparently Forte thinks straps don't existing and it's a failure.
Very annoying that the only option to circumvent this excessive uplift failure is to remove the support altogether. An uplift shouldn't be considered a failure, it should be considered a warning. We should be able to either choose a product to resolve the uplift, or better yet, check a box that the uplift has been properly and accounted for. I get that this software is for contractors and not necessarily designed for engineers, but I find it annoying that I need to manually cover the "Failed" statement on these calculations and provide a clarification that I have designed a connection to resolve the uplift.
The current release of ForteWEB allows for the removal of supports with excessive uplift during analysis. This setting is found on the Member Info tab.