We bought RISABASE recently and have been very pleased. One thing it will do that Ram won't is moments in two directions simultaneously. Price I believe is similar.
This reminds me of a question I had concerning flexible base plate design. The designs run with the traditional rigid plate assumptions usually show the plate thickness controlling the design, with the bearing pressure comparitvely lower. In contrast, the flexible approach will allow for thinner base plates that yield higher local bearing pressures. It seems that the traditional allowable concrete stresses are too conservative when applied to a finite element flexible plate design. Some of the peak preassures occupy very small regions of the overall area vs. rigid plate results which assume the bearing pressure over the entire plate. With the increase in computing power, the finite type approaches are becoming routine. Will the codes give different allowables based on design approach? I've rerun a number of examples of base plates I've designed traditionally (i.e. rigid) with the flexible approach. Looking at the pressure contours, I've been allowing 10% to 25% higher local pressures on some plates. Is there any rule of thumb for an increase in an allowable bearing stress value that was based on average pressures and rigid plates when applied to flexible designs?
>>> lvtakp(--nospam--at)yahoo.com 06/12/00 01:52PM >>>
I am thinking about purchasing the Ram base plate
program - it looks pretty good - any opinions out
there on it or others?
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!