Incident Descriptions


Incident 162   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Improve Point of Interest data entry to make it more efficient

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 1/20/1999 2:14:24 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description D Teal 1/15/99

When putting in P.O.I. locations for each span. Lets say you want a POI at the .5 span for each of 4 spans. Select span #1 - tab - .5 - APPLY

Then select span #2 - tab - .5 APPLY


The second one overrights the first. You have to select OK, which closes the window, then select POI to re-open again for the second, and so on.


FROM:jduray DATE:01/20/1999 09:13:56

It sounds like it is behaving the way it is supposed to, however, seems like we need a POI wizard to hel generate POI quickly.


FROM D Teal 2/25/99

It would save time to do POI for all spans on one screen instead of clicking OK and reopening the screen again and again. With an 8 span structure, this could get old in a hurry.


FROM:jduray DATE:02/25/1999 15:20:48

We need a wizard for this. We will be sure to get it in for P/S. Doubtful for steel. I'll see what we can do!


FROM:jduray DATE:4/14/2005 3:45:18 PM

address in 5922


Incident 239   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Library Explorer - no tree item menu available using right mouse click

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 1/25/1999 3:34:19 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description D Teal 1/25/99

"NEW" should be availabel with a right mouse click on Agency?


Incident 565   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Profile Schematic w/ overlapping stiffeners or diaphragms causes dimensioning to be upside down

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 2/23/1999 2:37:41 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:02/23/1999 09:27:51

When I enter 2 ranges of transverse stiffeners that overlap each other or 2 ranges of diaphragms that overlap each other, I get an upside down dimension in the profile schematic.

Example:


Say my member is 150' long

Transverse stiffener ranges


Start Dist Num Spaces Spacing

(ft) (in)

0 30 60

10 3 72


In the profile I get the # 140'-0" showing upside down under the stiffener spacing dimensions. Same thing happens for diaphragm spacings.


FROM: cclancy 2/24/99 The schematic for the profile was attempting to dimension the gap between adacent ranges of stiffeners/diaphragms (for the case where the starting point for the range is not the same as the ending point for the last range). A check was added to ensure that this is only done for the cases where the starting point is greater than the end point for the previous range.


However, when the stiffener ranges overlap, the dimensions still may be confusing because they overlap also. I'm not sure why one would want to define overlapping stiffener ranges - should we allow it? It would be a good idea to check to see if BRASS interprets the overlapping stiffener and diaphragm ranges as expected.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:02/24/1999 10:14:16

Brian is making the changes in BRASS for overlapping stiffener and diaphragm ranges. The users want the ability to enter 1 range of stiffeners that are the connection plates for the diaphragms and then another range for other stiffeners between the cross frames.


FROM: cclancy 2/24/99 This should be ok for the schematic as long as the diaphragm/cross frame ranges don't overlap with themselves and the stiffener ranges don't overlap with themselves. They are drawn/dimensioned separately in the schematic so there shouldn't be any problem with overlapping dimensions. Will the Virtis GUI check to see that this doesn't happen (i.e. warn the user if they overlap)?


I'm assuming that BRASS will combine the ranges of cross-frame connection plates and stiffeners when it comes to determining stiffener spacing for shear analysis/design.


Let me know if I am missing anything in my assumptions.


FROM:jduray DATE:02/24/1999 11:14:53

The ranges may overlap with themselves.


FROM:cclancy 2/25/99

Do we want to change how overlapping ranges are dimensioned? If so, how?


FROM:jduray DATE:03/03/1999 16:33:49


FROM:jduray DATE:03/05/1999 08:18:32

Jeff - What do you think about this?


FROM:jduray DATE:03/08/1999 09:00:32

Jeff says leave it the way it is for now, enhance in a future release if necessary.


Incident 695   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject View the Summary of Rating Results from BWS

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 2/26/1999 6:09:15 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description Vinacs: I have run a bridge that has three structures. Each structure has one alternatives. Each structuredefiniton has two to six members. Once I have done the analysis, how do I see the rating summary at bridge, structure, and structure defnition level. (I am able to view the rating summary at member level.)

Vinacs: I changed this fron Q/A to Resubmit, since this feature is very important for us to view the summary of the ratitng results.


FROM:jduray DATE:03/03/1999 15:59:12

At the present time there is no way from the BWS to display what you are asking. We need TF direction on this.


FROM:rdquinn DATE:04/21/1999 11:20:26

This was also brought up by users at the trainging workshop.


Incident 787   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Behavior of Tree within BWS - Which folders are opened or closed not remembered

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 3/5/1999 9:21:44 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description Vinacs: I am not sure how to explain it because of lack of understanding of some technical terms. In the Bridge Tree, at a collapsed state one could see only the folder. (If I am wrong, please correct me. I will continue further with this assumption).

I was able to made to see all the branches in the tree. Later I wanted to collapse some of the folder to minimize the size of the tree. I can do that in the Virtis. However, I am not able to save that tree. Whenever, I close the bridge and reopen the bridge, it shows the full tree. (CONFUSED. Sorry about this. IF you don't make sense, please give me a call.)

In a nutshell, What I would like to have here is that program opens up the bridge tree exactly similar to the one that the user left off at the end of the bridge entry.


FROM:jduray DATE:03/06/1999 11:33:36

We do not save the tree. The tree differs for each bridge and to save it to the registry (the usual approach) for each bridge would be unreasonable. Perhaps as an enhancement we could devise a way to save the tree for a bridge to a file and only save the most recent ones. If the tree opens and differs from the contents of the file the default would apply. There are a lot of complications to this and the likelihood of opening the tree the way the user last used it is low unless noone else worked on the bridge between sessions.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:03/29/2000 11:04:13

duplicate of 2052


Incident 844   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Data validation message formatting

Status Suspended

Submitted By quinn, r

Date Submitted 3/12/1999 10:20:25 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:rdquinn DATE:03/12/1999 17:15:33

When the edit control validates the value entered by user and finds it is out of range a message box is display showing the valid ranges. Since the min and max values in the data dictionary are for the stored unit type the number might not be a round number. Example: the max mile post is 9999 KM which displays as 6123.09055105187 miles . I think the message box should apply an edit mask, or in some way round the number off to something less the 10 decimal places.


Incident 858   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Profile View: Bottom Cover PL. is showing in the schematic, but it isn't called out in the text (size/description)

Status Suspended

Submitted By Generated, bbeerman

Date Submitted 3/15/1999 6:02:13 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: cclancy 3/18/99 - This is being taken under consideration. The dimensioning of the cover plates on the profile is difficult given the flexibility Virtis allows in adding multiple cover plates. There can be multiple stacked cover plates and gaps between sets of cover plate sets (i.e., different variations of cover plated and non cover plated ranges) and combinations of these configurations. Given this, a general dimensioning procedure would be rather complex.


Incident 935   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Closing output, graph, log, etc. windows does not close other windows

Status Suspended

Submitted By McCaffrey, Brian

Date Submitted 3/18/1999 1:21:49 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description When changing from viewing output to reviewing graphs or log files the window you leave does not close,

which ties up system resources. If you are in a session for an extended period of time these open windows will

eventually cause the computer to lock up.


FROM:jduray DATE:03/19/1999 08:23:50

We did not plan for them to close. The way it is implemented allows you to view multiple forms of output for multiple members in multiple bridges. It is the most flexible. Perhaps a future enhancement would be to change this (based on a user preference).


Incident 956   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Bridge Explorer - Allow right mouse click to open bridge workspace

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 3/22/1999 1:31:03 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description 3-22-99 D Teal

When selecting a Bridge, we have no Rt click to open it (which there should be). You have to rely on double clicking. More than half the time I try I get a small dithered box next to my mouse pointer. In order to open that bridge I will have to click off the requested bridge someplace to unhighlight it and go back and try double clicking again. I went to my control panel to check my double click rate. I tested my settings many many times and never once did I fail to click too fast or too slow. We don’t need to frustrate new users any more than we have to.


FROM:jduray DATE:03/22/1999 10:45:22

I assume you are refering to the Bridge Explorer. There are three ways to open a BWS for a bridge: 1) double click (works best if you point to the center of a row so you don't get the copy cursor); 2) select a bridge and select File/Open; 3) select a bridge and click the toolbar Open button. You can also use the up and down keys to scroll the list of bridges and in the next build you can use the Tab key to navigate between the folders and the list and Enter will open (same as double-click) the BWS for the selected bridge.


3/23/99 D Teal

I pointed at the center of the row the best I can and still get the copy cursor 75% of the time. It's frustrating! And I am using a 19" monitor. Maybe the rows are too small.

If we can't fix the double click then I propose we utilize the mouse right click function. This is where most users would look anyway. When I look for faster easier methods, I always check out the rt click.




FROM: dteal DATE: 3/17/2000 3:38 PM

See 1483


FROM:jduray DATE:03/23/2000 09:41:51

You don't have to rely on double clicking. You can click on the bridge and hit the Enter key of use the mouse and click OPen on the toolbar or select File/Open.


Incident 962   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Database Disconnect - add reconnect feature and timed disconnect-reconnect

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 3/22/1999 4:23:19 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:jduray DATE:03/22/1999 12:03:49

The first release has a partial implementation of the database disconnect. However, beta testing uncovered a problem that we could not fix correctly prior to release and since only NY requested the feature we decided to disable the feature for that release. The following describes how it is currently implemented (but disabled) and what needs to be done to fix it.


The LRESULT CMainFrame::OnStartDbDisconnectTimer(WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam) function is called when the mainframe opens. It creates a timer

The void CMainFrame::OnTimer(UINT nIDEvent) function get the message when the timer expires and calls CMainFrame::Disconnect() which calls CDbConnectionMgr::DisconnectPrimary().

CDbConnectionMgr::DisconnectPrimary() calls BOOL CDbConnectionMgr::Disconnect(short iKey) which calls BOOL CDbConnection::Disconnect(). BOOL CDbConnection::Disconnect() calls BOOL CDbDatabase::Disconnect() which checks that there are no pending transactions and no recordsets created. Recordsets are put into a list held by CDatabase. There are added to the list when created (not opened) and removed when closed.


The timer is restarted in void CUiDescDtopGridView::SetDbDisconnectTimer(). This needs to be done anywhere we access the database or perhaps it should be done in the OnIdle function. This may need to be more sophisticated to prevent disconnect during processing and will require significant testing.


To make this feature more robust and less dependent on the db we need to store more in memory. All access to the system tables and the library cause a reconnect.


The code is disabled with #if 0 and commented with // ##### Database disconnect.


Two functions were overridden (and then if-defed) in CDbDatabase because the CDatabase::Connect() function queries for the top level window. Dialogs using abocfg had a problem with this and assert. The OpenEx() function calls Connect and it too was overridden but not changed. We need to find why this problem exists and correct it. Maybe the override is the only way but we need to be certain of that since it will be a maintenance problem as new versions of MFC are delivered. I removed the reference to the window oin the overridden Connect function and it seemed to work. Didn't test it much though.


To make this work we need to do the following:

1) buffer more of the library in memory

2) buffer much of the system tables in memory

3) find a better way (OnIdle or something similar) to reactivate the timer after the database is reconnected

4) fix the problem with the dialogs that access abocfg objects ()and test that there are not other similar situations)

5) find a way to detect a lost connection and reconnect

6) provide a way to refresh the buffered data


FROM:jduray DATE:4/14/2005 3:34:31 PM

An alternative to this is to tickle the db by querying the db based on a timer event. Should add enable/disable and the time interval to the preferences.


Incident 1094   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Ability to sort ranges in grids after new range is added out of order w/o reopening window

Status Suspended

Submitted By quinn, r

Date Submitted 4/13/1999 6:11:48 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:rdquinn DATE:04/13/1999 14:09:04

Need ability to sort ranges (plates, stiffeners, etc.).


Incident 1149   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Schematic Profile View - Hinge locations not available

Status Suspended

Submitted By Barnhill, Gale

Date Submitted 5/5/1999 6:09:07 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM: gbarnhill DATE: 5/5/1999 1:12 PM

There is no item to select Hinge locations on the DRAWING LEVEL CONTROL.


Incident 1208   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Printing of structure rating results

Status Suspended

Submitted By Shah, Shyam

Date Submitted 6/12/1999 5:31:48 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: snshah DATE: 6/11/1999 3:25 PM


Why can't we print the table of the structure rating results from the bridge explorer?


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:06/15/1999 17:14:02

There is no print capability on this window. The window is a dialog box and we cannot use document-view printing capabilities.


Incident 1232   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Window Configuration

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/22/1999 12:35:09 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 6/22/1999 7:40 AM


Windows should open up without having all the column’s pushed to the left. At least expand them so the column headings can be read without manipulation.


FROM:jihnat DATE:07/08/1999 12:45:10

We generally do this. Do you know specifically which window(s) he is referring to?

FROM: dteal DATE: 7/21/1999 10:24 AM

For the most part all new windows require user manipulation. You have to grab each column seperatly and widen them to see the text. You can read the column headings, but text below the headings is usually partly hidden.

FROM: dteal DATE: 7/26/1999 12:55 AM

At the User Group meeting this past week I watched as each different window was opened. Jim went to the top of the column to widen something on every window he opened to see the text. This extra column width manipulation is what I'm referring to.


FROM:jduray DATE:08/12/1999 07:51:30

We will look into this, however, this is only necessary the first time a window is opened after Virtis is installed. When each window closes we save the info to the registry for future use. It may not be possible, or reasonable, to size the columns perfectly because the size of the text varies from row to row. Also, (i'm not sure about this one) the font may affect the size and to determine for each row may slow window updates.


Incident 1233   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Opis as a Design Tool

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/22/1999 12:36:05 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 6/22/1999 7:41 AM


Opis can be used to RATE or as a Design Review tool. But to create an economical design from scratch is by trial and error only. Very time consuming.


There needs to some iteration process to find economical solutions. Plus there needs to be a cost estimator (by weight/mass) to make comparisons.


Web Thickness or Flange

After a web height is decided, we should be able to give it the thickness and have Opis iterate on flanges. Or the other way around. We should be able to lock one in and iterate on the other. Intermediate Stiffeners should be located and sized based on the web thickness and height. Bearing stiffeners should be sized on the same bases. Trial and error wastes much time and usually will not result in economical designs.


Incident 1269   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Need to imporve hardcopy

Status Suspended

Submitted By Best, Richard

Date Submitted 7/9/1999 4:03:48 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: rmbest DATE: 7/9/1999 11:12 AM

There needs to be better control of output. The user should be able to select the items to be included in an output report. The 100page+ output file from BRASS is unmanageable


FROM:jduray DATE:07/20/1999 11:36:35

Do the output options available in the analysis settings help?

FROM: rmbest DATE: 8/3/1999 2:23 PM

Yes, but I think what we need is a report writer or wizard. The user should be able to generate a formated report with as much or as little information as necessary. The ablility to set up Agency templates would be nice.


Incident 1364   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Height of Rows

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 8/9/1999 3:18:00 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: VVinayagamoorthy DATE: 8/9/1999 8:20 AM

I am wondering whether we could have the options to save user prefered' height of rows (Just like the user has the preference in saving his/her column width.)


FROM:jduray DATE:08/09/1999 14:35:25

It is possible to do this.


Incident 1375   

Folder /Support Center

Subject diaphragm wizard--possible to highlight entire bay and delete at once, rather than line-by-line?

Status Suspended

Submitted By Generated, shida

Date Submitted 8/10/1999 6:19:17 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description diaphragm wizard--possible to highlight entire bay and delete at once, rather than line-by-line?

FROM: shida DATE: 8/10/1999 11:22 AM


Incident 1411   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Profile schematic does not show steel girder profile beyind the CL brg.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/12/1999 4:13:01 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 8/12/1999 11:17 AM

In the member window I have values for the End Bearing Locations as Lt = 350 mm & Rt = 200 mm. According to the help file, this X distance (girder overhang) is from the centerline of bearing to the end of the girder. My left span was 35 m centerline to centerline of bearing. The left span + girder overhang is then 35.350 m. The view shows the 2 pair of stiffeners correctly with there offsets, but the girder stops at the centerline of bearing and does not extend out the actual end of the girder. Should it show in the view this extension?


FROM:jduray DATE:1/5/01 12:02:41 PM

It seems appropriate to show the complete steel profile.



FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, April 02, 2002 3:21:45 PM

Look at the left end of girder line #2 for an example


Incident 1445   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Option to saving before running - add to preferences

Status Suspended

Submitted By Best, Richard

Date Submitted 8/23/1999 2:27:00 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM: rmbest DATE: 8/23/1999 9:29 AM


After entering data for a bridge, I ran the analysis and soon ran out of virtual memory. Since I didn't save the information to the database before running, the entered data was lost. It would be nice if the program asks to save the data to the database before running. Perhaps a switch can be put in the preferences to turn this option on or off.


Incident 1505   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Load Case Description

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 9/21/1999 12:51:21 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 9/21/1999 7:55 AM

I populated the Wearing Surface tab in the Structure Typical Section window. I selected load case - DL3 from the pull down. I had made load case DL3 available in the Load Case Description window as Load Case DL3, Stage 2, Type = D,DW.

After an analysis I looked in the “Analysis Results” for Dead Load Actions, Stage 2. But instead of seeing DL3 in the Dead Load Case pull-down, I see “Superimposed Uniform Dead Load (DW).

Is this supposed to overwrite a load case name with this?


FROM:jduray DATE:10/19/1999 16:29:38

This results from the way Virtis and BRASS communicate. I think this can be changed but it needs some investigation.


FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 8/7/2008 2:09:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I think this has been "Over come by events" and should be closed


Incident 1685   

Folder /Support Center

Subject BWS Tree collapses when checking out structure definition - save status of tree to file

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ordoobadi, Mehrdad

Date Submitted 11/8/1999 6:42:58 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:mordoobadi DATE:11/08/1999 13:38:32

In BWS if you select an expanded structure definition tree item and check it out, the tree collapses.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/10/1999 16:42:56

We need to save the status of the tree before we rebuild the tree during the checkout process and then restore it after. This is an enhancement.


Incident 1748   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Stress Limit - allowable slab compression

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 11/22/1999 9:03:33 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/22/1999 16:00:15

I don't think we should have allowable slab compression on this window since the other items in this window correspond to the girder concrete material selected in this window. We could have a stress limit for an 8 ksi girder and a 4 ksi slab. Then say the user changes the deck concrete to a 3.5 ksi concrete in the deck profile or structure typical section window. The allowable slab compression in our stress limit no longers applies but we don't have any way to validate for that.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/22/1999 16:30:27

Good idea. Suggest where to put it.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:01/10/2000 14:48:38

I can't think of anywhere else to put this. Maybe the stress limit also has to have a deck slab material associated with it.


Incident 1760   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Shrinkage/Time window - time for AASHTO equation - add engine coef. entered by user

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 11/24/1999 3:23:18 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/24/1999 10:19:45

The time additional under beam and deck on the shrinkage tab is a value in AASHTO LRFD eq. 54.2.3.3-1 and 2 dependent on moist or steam cured. (35 if moist cured, 55 if steam cured). they should be removed from virtis since we know the type of curing.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/24/1999 10:29:25

Also, there is a checkbox to consider deck differential shrinkage loads on this tab. Should this be part of the analysis event?


FROM:jduray DATE:12/17/1999 15:47:53

Default the time additional (if null) when the curing method is selected. Also, default to moist cured.


I think we shoudl set these default values in the domain when the member alt is created. Krisha - do you agree?


I don't think it should be in the analysis event.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/22/1999 10:26:10

Let's move these two values to engine data.


Krisha - remove from window

Mehrdad - remove from db and domain

Brian - add to engine data and fix export


FROM:kkennelly DATE:01/06/2000 16:41:04

Additional time removed from window for Beta build 3.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:01/12/2000 15:13:49

Remove deck_additional_time from abw_super_struct_spng_mbr_alt.

Remove additional_time from abw_ps_precast_beam_def.


ERwin model updated.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:01/12/2000 16:21:28

Database updated.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:01/12/2000 16:52:55

Data dictionary updated.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:01/14/2000 14:54:10

Domain updated.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 1/18/2000 9:15 AM

BRASS allows overrides for the additional times plus a handfull of other factors, which are entered on the PSLOAD-SHRINK-STRAIN command. Either all or none of this command's parameters should be added to the engine properties.


I spoke with Jim on 1/17/2000 and he instructed me not to add the additional times to the engine properties. We may come back in a later release and add them.


The times have been removed from the export, so the BRASS defaults are now used based on the concrete curing method.


Incident 1800   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Just default stress limit range

Status Suspended

Submitted By puckett, jay

Date Submitted 11/30/1999 4:48:02 AM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: jpuckett DATE: 11/29/1999 9:43 PM

A3b2


30. Stress limit range – default to span lengths


FROM:jihnat DATE:02/22/2000 15:15:39

This could be a future enhancement. We currently don't do this type of defaulting anwhere else in the GUI.


FROM:jduray DATE:6/29/01 3:17:08 PM

Perhaps this should be done in the domain?


Incident 1850   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Live Load Distribution (LRFD) – Slab Bridge

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 12/2/1999 2:02:59 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 12/2/1999 8:03 AM

Calculations for the dist. Factors should be done by a calculate button. At this point we already know span lengths, number of lanes and section width. Needed input at this point would be the “physical edge to edge distance of the bridge” and skew angle.

In US units we always divide by “1 FOOT” for simplicity. But in SI this is not the case. If a user where to change a section width and not change the Dist. Factors errors in output would result.


FROM: dteal DATE: 12/2/1999 8:21 AM

Attached is a simple spread sheet I worked up last night for calculating Dist. Factors. It's basic, but it works.


FROM: dteal DATE: 1/20/2000 11:57 AM

Being RATING doesn’t have LRFD code to follow yet, they are still using LFD Dist. Factors for Slab Structures. They don’t know yet how important this “will be” to them.


FROM: dteal DATE: 3/15/2000 2:00 PM


FROM:jduray DATE:6/29/01 4:26:29 PM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Incident 1864   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject PS Beam Temporary Supports - Transportation

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 12/2/1999 7:17:30 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 12/2/1999 1:17 PM

The following needs to be checked.

During transportation, prestressed beams may be subjected to dynamic forces. This “bouncing” of the beam can reduce the dead load on the member which could result in critical tension stresses in the top of the beam. The designer should check these stresses by assuming support points for beam transportation at 5’-0” from the end of the beam or to the first tenth point of the span, whichever is greater. Check tension in the top of the beam over the temporary support due to the cantilevered moment. To approximate the dynamic load effects, assume a beam dead load of “3g” on the cantilevered portion (PCI Design Handbook, 3rd Edition, Chapter 5).

Also check the tension in the top of the beam at the harp point of the strands using the reduced span length due tot he temporary supports. Again, use 3g for the overhang force, but use the normal beam dead load “g” when computing forces between the supports. Allow a maximum temporary tension stress of 6(f’c)^½.


FROM:jduray DATE:6/29/01 4:31:29 PM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Incident 1865   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Strand Hold Down Devices

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 12/2/1999 7:18:09 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 12/2/1999 1:18 PM

Either limits or actual forces need to be reported for the hold down devices.

The strand hold down points on PS beams should normally be at the .4 and .6 points. The vertical force required to deflect the strands downward in the beam shall be limited to 4 kips per strand ( ½” sevenwire) and 38 kips per hold down device.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/04/1999 10:08:27

Brian - is this information available in BRASS?


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 12/4/1999 12:18 PM

There are no limits on the hold down forces in BRASS.


FROM:jduray DATE:6/29/01 4:33:53 PM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Incident 1923   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject "Spec check detail for rating factor computations"

Status Suspended

Submitted By Generated, jmckool

Date Submitted 12/8/1999 4:35:07 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:jmckool DATE:12/08/1999 11:31:43

This spec check window calculates a Design Ratio or a Rating Factor based on a resistance stress and dead load and live load stresses. However, it does not say where the stress occurs, i.e. top flange or bottom flange. Is it possible to add that information to this window? I essentially had to work backwards through the stress calculation windows to determine what these stresses are.

Also, is it possible to add what the resistance stress is? For example, initial allowable compression or final allowable slab compression.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 12/14/1999 8:01 AM

The spec check details are written inside general tools that do not know where they are being called from. They were not intended to be used as a stand alone tool that gave a lot of information about the computation. The BRASS output illustrate these comps where one or more sections above a rating comp gives the information about the resistance, stress locations, etc. However, it is possible to add the requested information, but it will take some time. This should be a task force directed task.


Jim - How should we proceed?


Incident 1935   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Rebar Sizes - add to library including square bars

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 12/8/1999 10:03:05 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: VVinayagamoorthy DATE: 12/8/1999 1:58 PM

Don't we need to have a library that lists all the possible rebar sizes? In 1930s, they used "square bars" in RC bridges. Now, we have metric rebar sizes. Although we could convert these bars to "circular bars", having these bars in a library will help to improve the efficiency of the program.


Incident 2178   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Beta 3 - Point of Interest description

Status Suspended

Submitted By Generated, jmckool

Date Submitted 1/11/2000 9:00:28 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:jmckool DATE:01/11/2000 15:58:56

I think it would be helpful to be able to put a description with each user-entered point of interest. This would identify why that point was picked. For example, you could put Harp Point or Critical Section for Shear.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/2/01 1:30:38 PM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Incident 2183   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add a table to store parameters

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ordoobadi, Mehrdad

Date Submitted 1/12/2000 3:37:21 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:mordoobadi DATE:01/12/2000 10:17:51

Add a table abw_lib_parameters


parameter_id SMALLINT (PK)

name VARCHAR(32) (AK)

sys_units_type INTEGER (FK)

unit_id SMALLINT (FK)

data_type INTEGER (FK)

float_value DOUBLE

integer_value INTEGER

char_value VARCHAR(255)

description VARCHAR(255)


odl file will have the following function declarations (List object)

boolean First();

boolean MoveNext();

IDeString* GetName();

IDeString* GetDescription();

short GetUnitId();

long GetSystemOfUnits();

IDispatch* GetParameter();


We would need a system class CSysParameters in abslib that is static to store the contents of this table in the memory.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:01/12/2000 10:43:25

See incident 2074 and 1783. These parameters should eventually be moved to the new table.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:12/11/2007 4:07:33 PM


I think this table was intended to store different values (coefficients) that are needed by the Virtis/Opis (like the ones in 2074) and may have different values based on the system of units that we are using. I guess I suggested this to have these kinds of data to be stored in a generic table like I suggested instead of adding new columns to the abw_lib_default table.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:12/11/2007 4:09:06 PM


FROM:jduray DATE:12/11/2007 4:14:32 PM

Similar toPontis COPTIONS.


Incident 2190   

Folder /Support Center

Subject SHEAR REINFORCEMENT RANGES

Status Suspended

Submitted By Generated, ttiberio

Date Submitted 1/13/2000 6:50:54 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: ttiberio DATE: 1/13/2000 1:46 PM

9 times out of 10 these ranges are going to be symetrical about the beam mid C.L. Why not give the user the Symetrical Option similar to what we do with P/S STRAND LAYOUT?


FROM:jduray DATE:7/3/01 2:35:26 PM

This incident was originally entered during 2.1 beta testing.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/3/01 2:48:56 PM

Add an indicator to the db - domain for symmetry, add domain function to generate the symmetry stirrups with and without applying to the dm/db. In other words, provide the option to generate the other side of the beam for purposes of export to the analysis program or for viewing the generated stirrups in the GUI. Also provide the option to generate the other side for storage in the db.


Need to also consider changes to validation, export, schematics, BWS Report, possibly the Report Tool, Help, an new window for viewing the generate stirrups.


Incident 2240   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Structure Definition – Prestressing Strand – Final Allow. Slab Compression

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 1/24/2000 9:31:54 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 1/24/2000 3:31 PM

May be related to Incident #1916

This should be populated with the AASHTO default. In order to do that, Deck Concrete material must have been selected prior. Deck concrete isn’t defined until the next GUI in the wizard.

In the LRFD BRASS manual, pg 9-7.1, Item #7, it refers to AASHTO 5.9.4.2.1, I think it should be 5.9.4.1.1.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 1/24/2000 3:29 PM

Because the P/S losses are removed in the non-composite stage and the deck comes into play in the composite stage, I think the reference to AASHTO 5.9.4.2.1 (Stresses at Service Limit State AFTER Losses) is correct.


FROM: dteal DATE: 1/27/2000 3:04 PM

Your correct about the code reference in the BRASS manual.

Are we going to populate the Final Allow. Slab Compression field? If we are using AASHTO 5.9.4.2.1 table 5.9.4.2.1-1, the full calculation should be 0.60Øwf’c (ksi) where Øw is a reduction factor for boxes.


FROM:jduray DATE:01/31/2000 09:03:36

Krisha - please advise.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:01/31/2000 09:25:26

See incident 1748. The only thing I think we can do is put a deck concrete material on the stress limit window. Then we have to make sure the deck concrete used on the deck profile is the same as the deck concrete associated with the stress limit being used. Or maybe we should take the allow. slab compression off the Stress Limit window and put it on the deck profile window? But that's not such a good idea cause it would just be on ps member alts and it doesn't really match the other type of data we have on that window.


FROM: dteal DATE: 2/4/2000 9:04 AM

Incident #1748 is not available to me on the "All Incident List". Could you provide a copy for me? Thanks


FROM:jduray DATE:02/07/2000 10:02:06

Dean - you should now have access to 1748.


FROM:jduray DATE:02/25/2000 13:16:01


FROM: dteal DATE: 3/6/2000 1:11 PM

Marked as "Information Needed". What's the question?


FROM: dteal DATE: 3/17/2000 10:48 AM

Be sure to look at # 1748 also.

I think we still need some attention here.

The wizard enters a value of zero if the user skips over it.

If the user enters a value here, and then on the Deck Profile window decides to use a different strength concrete, he will never remember to go back to the PS Stress limit window to change the value for the Final Allowable Slab compression.

A lot of the time this program is being looked at mostly from the Rating aspect where the concrete strength value doesn’t change. But from the design side, we may change the concrete strength during the iterative design process.


FROM:jduray DATE:03/22/2000 17:20:31

Krisha - let's discuss this.

FROM: dteal DATE: 5/17/2000 9:05 AM

Have we made any progress here??


FROM:jduray DATE:3/2/01 11:53:11 AM

No progress.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:5/17/01 1:56:04 PM

Refer to attached document for possible resolution.


Incident 2293   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Structure Framing Plan Details – Diaphragms – Temporary

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/10/2000 4:25:42 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 2/10/2000 10:24 AM

How are “Temporary” Diaphragms handled? They are commonly used.


FROM:jduray DATE:02/10/2000 15:57:13

Please describe what you mean by this.


FROM: dteal DATE: 2/10/2000 3:50 PM

WE (Kansas) use Temporary metal diaphragms that are removed after the deck is poured. The contractor has the option of using CIP diaphragms (seldom used). The only choices given by Opis are either you have them or you don't. We need a choice for using them only in non-composite stage 1.


FROM: dteal DATE: 3/6/2000 12:40 PM

FROM: dteal DATE: 3/15/2000 1:27 PM

Are you waiting for more information? Please advise.


FROM:jduray DATE:03/23/2000 09:54:04

This is an enhancement.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/3/01 4:14:19 PM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Incident 2328   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Stress Limits; Copy-Paste-Modify Option

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 2/15/2000 8:30:21 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: VVinayagamoorthy DATE: 2/15/2000 12:25 PM

At present, we are allowed to copy-paste and modify to enter new set of stress limits. A GOOD FEATURE. However, it needs a minor improvement.

Final Allowable slab compression is supposed to be entered by the user. When a user enters a stress limit, allowable slab compression cell is blank and as a result, user will be forced to enter the correct value. However, when a user copy and paste an already entered stress limit, this may not happen. Please note that the final allowable slab compression cell is already filled when you copy and paste. This could lead to problem. Is there any thing that we can do to bring the user's attention to that cell?

Please note that since the deck material for the whole bridge will be the same and therefore, there may be a remote possibility to have different allowable compression stress. Because of this reason, this can be considered as an enhancement for later release.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/3/01 4:16:31 PM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Incident 2342   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Improve print and zoom capability of the schematics

Status Suspended

Submitted By Generated, jmckool

Date Submitted 2/17/2000 6:46:51 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:jmckool DATE:02/17/2000 13:43:39

I viewed the typical section schematic for a 10-beam (P/S box) system. It showed up fine on-screen, but when I printed it, it came out portrait and cut off the right half of the bridge. The deck is 76'-10" wide. Is it possible to scale the image to fit on one sheet, or (better yet) print in landscape which would allow a larger scale?


FROM:jduray DATE:7/6/01 10:20:34 AM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Improvement of the printing and zoom capability of the schematics is scheduled for the 4.1 or 4.2 release.


Incident 2406   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Time of analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By puckett, jay

Date Submitted 2/27/2000 5:29:21 AM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM: jpuckett DATE: 2/26/2000 10:28 PM

Suggest default of time of analysis to service life.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/5/01 9:09:46 AM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Incident 2489   

Folder /Support Center

Subject non numeric entries are allowed within Live Load Distribtution factors

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 3/7/2000 3:17:18 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: VVinayagamoorthy DATE: 3/7/2000 7:14 AM

Within Standard and LRFD load distribution data entry GUIs, non numeric enteries are allowed.


Please make sure all the GUIs are checked for this error. It takes a lot of time to check every GUI

FROM: VVinayagamoorthy DATE: 3/7/2000 9:22 AM

Framing Plan Tables does not check for non numeric entry either.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:03/29/2000 11:17:14

duplicate of 473


Incident 2531   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Drag and Drop: Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 3/17/2000 5:35:25 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: VVinayagamoorthy DATE: 3/17/2000 10:24 AM

Program allows to drag and drop a folder. I use this option instead of using copy and paste option. It make the modeling easier. However, when I have a long bridge tree I am not able to use this option.


This is because that I am not able to see both copy and paste folders within displayed window. Futhermore, Virtis does not scroll down the tree automatically. (I noticed that Windows explorer does scroll down automatically)

Can we improve Virtis such that it scrolls down automatically? This needs not to be addressed in this release. (An enhancement request.)


FROM:jduray DATE:7/5/01 9:30:59 AM

This incident was originally entered during 3.0 beta testing.


Incident 2569   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Linking engine error to GUI windows

Status Suspended

Submitted By puckett, jay

Date Submitted 3/22/2000 11:46:02 AM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:jduray DATE:03/22/2000 07:44:21

E-mail from Jay...

Jim: How can we link the Window/resource ID to an error message? My suggestion is that we (the engine folks) have an output window that lists possible errors. Here the user can double click on an error and bring up a Window that outlines possible error(s). The user selects an option and Virtis/Opis goes to the appropriate Window. If only one possibility exists then the double click places the user in the most likely place. Very similar to the compiler IDE. Seems like we need to a resource ID table in the Domain. The engine provides a one-to-many relationship. One engine error to several possible Virtis/Opis bridge definitions problems.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/5/01 9:35:24 AM

This incident was originally entered during 4.0 development.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 9/7/2012 9:43:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time

See also Incident 3847.


Incident 2602   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Cleanup of engine data files

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 4/7/2000 2:15:36 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:04/07/2000 10:06:47

E-mail form MoDOT:


One thing that we have noticed when running Virtis is that it goes out and stores some data files on our hard drives These files are data files that are used by the analysis engine for Virtis which is Brass. We were trying to figure out if there is a way to have these files stored somewhere besides our hard drives The problem that we are going to have is that these files are large. They range in size from 250 Mbytes to 2.0 Mbytes. There will basically be a file stored for each bridge. (For example if you analyze A4974, then a directory for A4974 is created on your hard drive with various files in it.) Sooner or later, we will run out of space on our hard drives (this would especially be true if we wanted to analyze a large group of bridges). We want the program to be installed on our hard drives so that we are taking advantage of the speed of our machines when compared to having the program out on the network. What we would like to be able to try was to have these files written out on a network drive somewhere while keeping the actual executable files on our hard drives Another option that we might have would be to have these files automatically deleted whenever Virtis is started. I was wondering if you could look into this matter and determine if there is some way that we can get around this. Me and Rich looked to see if there was an INI file somewhere which would allow you to redirect these files, but we could not find one.



My response back to them:


The issue of files created by the analysis engine, their size, location, etc. is on our list of enhancements that, with AASHTO approval, we will be addressing in the version 4 release in September. We may be able to do something sooner on a smaller scale.


At this time you have to maintain the files using Explorer. It sounds like you understand the directory structure so you know where to find the files and how to delete them. There is no provision for writing the files on a server and this may not be feasible given that multiple users can work on the same bridge at the same time. For example suppose person A checks a bridge out and is modifying the bridge description while person B is doing a permit analysis of that same bridge. Person A rates the bridge and the files are written to the server. Before person A opens the output file for review person B does a rating of a different vehicle and possibly with different structural properties. Person A then opens the output file (not knowing that person B has also done and analysis) and is now looking at the wrong analysis results. Furthermore, writing the large output files to a server may be slow (as you mention). I think it is best that we provide tools for managing the files we create but continue to write them to the local PC drive (although maybe we should send them to a user-defined location and add a userid to the directory structure). Perhaps an option to delete files when a bridge workspace is closed.


---end of my response


The following needs to be scoped to improve the way we manage output:

1) a utility for viewing and maintaining the analysis events stored in the database - at the Bridge Explorer level. (80) hours)

2) a utility for viewing and maintaining the engine output files on the disk - at the Bridge Explorer level. (80 hours)

3) add the option to not write batch rating results to the database but still review them the way we do now (from the Bridge Explorer). ---------done for 4.1

4) provide 1-3 above but from the Bridge Workspace (160 hours)


FROM:jduray DATE:5/21/02 9:21:20 AM


FROM:jduray DATE:5/22/02 11:37:02 AM


Incident 2656   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Load Case Description – R/C

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 5/3/2000 4:05:50 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 5/3/2000 11:01 AM

My options for Stages are:

Non-Composite Stage 1

Composite (long term) Stage 2

Composite (short term) Stage 3


What I see here is confusion. When entering data for a RC Haunched Slab structure, none of the above options for Stages apply. There are no composite regions in a slab bridge (no girders). There is no direction anywhere to go to the Member Alt Properties to select “All loads applied in Stage One”. The help for the key word “Stages” doesn’t address this at all.


When you select “All loads applied in Stage One” in the Member Alt Properties, does this over ride anything you may have selected in the Load Case Description window??


FROM:jduray DATE:05/08/2000 10:29:24

Brian - please answer the question about the override and then assign to me.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 5/8/2000 10:54 AM

The short answer is YES. No matter what a user enters into the Load Case Description window, BRASS only allows one stage for R/C, so the export applies the loads accordingly. Maybe the stages in the Load Case Description window could be filtered based on the Member Alternative Types check boxes on the Structure Definition window.


Also, for an R/C member alternative, the ASD/LFD engine properties show two options (in a drop-down box) for the Load Sequence:

=> Computed based on loadings and composite regions

=> 1 stage - R/C bridge with one constuction stage

However, the LRFD engine properties show the Load Sequence as a set of radio buttons that are the same for every type of girder, i.e., Computed, Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3. We may need to hide the radio buttons that are not applicable to R/C to prevent any further confusion. Note that the Computed option is required because that is the default set in the default string of the member alt engine properties, which remains constant for all girder types. The 1 stage option was required for the import of BRASS data file.


The export does issue a warning if the users applies a load to a stage which does not exist in BRASS for the structure type. When this occurs, the load will be applied to the last allowable stage, which is stage 1 for R/C.


Incident 2683   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement Request - Folders/Filters/Lists

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 5/17/2000 7:38:46 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: tthompson DATE: 5/17/2000 2:23 PM


I was hoping to use the concept of folders/filters/lists to do overweight permits. But I have come across one significant shortcoming, For NBI Item 5, we only currently have available Item 5D - Route Number. I would request that we have the ability to also have access to Item 5B - Route Signing Prefix, Item 5C - Designated Level of Service and 5E Direction Suffix.

pontis_bridge.kind_hwy

pontis_bridge.levl_srvc

pontis_bridge.dirsuffix


These are really need to differentiate between for example

US 14 US 14 E US 14 W US 14A US 14B US 14 F

the routenum is 00014 for all of these but you need the additional NBI Item 5 codes to know which highway 14 you are using. Until we get the ability to create folders/filters/lists based on these other values, I would say that we are severely limited.


Incident 2697   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject LL Distribution Factors Compute from Typ Section Details window

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 5/22/2000 1:14:31 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:05/22/2000 09:13:10

It would be nice to have a Details window (similar to PS Design Tool Review Details) where we could show the calcs used to compute the distribution factors.


Incident 2704   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement Request - How Do I create a folder based on multiple routes

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 5/24/2000 3:42:03 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: tthompson DATE: 5/24/2000 10:34 AM


This is similiar but different than a previous enhancement request.

I would like to use VIRTIS for doing overweight permits and I would like to be able to create a folder/list of all the structures that a permit vehicle may cross. Since 99% of all permits loads use more than 1 highway, I don't see a way to currenlty create a structure list based on multiple routes.


I would like to see a more robust way to create folders/lists so that one may use VIRTIS for overweight permitting. I would say that a dozen routes for a permit is not uncommon (at least in our state). An upper limit would probably 18 or 20 routes. Maybe there is already a way to do this but I don't see how yet.


FROM:jduray DATE:05/24/2000 14:20:28

If a list folder is adequate you can do it by creating a filter folder for each route and then copying the bridges in each of the filter folders to the list folder. Then delete the filter folder. I suspect you really want a filter folder that has multiple route criteria. If that is what you want let me know and I will add it to the list of enhancements for the TF to review and schedule.

FROM: tthompson DATE: 5/24/2000 3:41 PM

I really think that we need a multiple route filter (along with highway direction(s), suffix, mile posts,etc (previous enhancement request)). I wanted some of these enhancements brought up prior to the User Group meeting so TF has time to review, estimate costs and times. This way users can make better decisions on where to make changes, enhancements etc.


Incident 2711   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement Request - Reports

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 5/25/2000 6:55:16 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: tthompson DATE: 5/25/2000 1:36 PM


(1)

I would like to see the following reports have the following data printed with each report:

Bridge ID

Bridge Alt

Structure

Structure Alt

Structure Definition

Member

Member Alt


We are currently trying to import our structures from BARS into VIRTIS and at the completion of importing, we are analyzing and printing the results. Unfortunately, the following reports do not contain any information about which structure it deals with:


Rating Results Summary Report

Dead Load Actions Report

Live Load Actions Report

LFD Critical Loads Report (Probably is a LRFD report also)

Any of the graphs


Some of the other reports contain at least the structure number/bridge id in a BRASS comment card, so there is a little help as to which part of the structure and which structure the output is for. Currently, one frequently ends up with printouts that one is not sure for which structure or which member for a structure is which. One is pretty much forced to print one report, pick up that report, hand label it, and then repeat the process.


(2)

I would like to see a more detailed summary report for a BRIDGE.

We currently have a VERY detailed report from BRASS that is very complete.

We currently have a very BRIEF Rating Results Summary report for a given member alternative.

BUT we don't have a Rating Results Summary Report for the BRIDGE. I would like to propose a report similiar to the Rating Results Summary report for a member alternative, but expand it to include all Members that are Current and existing for the bridge. CUrrently, one has to look at each member alternative rating results and then manually select the ratings that control for a given structure. There may or may not be some additional items to include on this report when compared to the Rating Results Summary report.


(3)

I would like to propose to the Task Force that a Reports/Output TAG be formed to address the topics of on-screen reports, printed reports and the like. We can have the greatest GUI, greatest DB, greatest engine, but if a user can't easily extract out the necessary data - it's useless and not very productive. Also, the reports that one needs when doing a design is much different than the user rating/analyzing a bridge for NBI purposes or for load posting purposes and is much different than the user analyzing an overweight load over a stretch(es) of highways for one given load over many structures.

FROM: tthompson DATE: 5/25/2000 1:52 PM


FROM:jduray DATE:05/26/2000 12:20:17

We are working on a reporting tool that should address these needs.


FROM:tthompson DATE:Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:10:32 PM

Task Force needs to adddress Reports at the Strategic Level, including creation of a Reports TAG.

Maybe use Crystal to take the xml data to create reports.....


Incident 2723   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Bridge Explorer - sorting

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 5/31/2000 1:11:11 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: tthompson DATE: 5/31/2000 8:03 AM


I'm not sure if this is intended to work this way or not. But,

If I sort the bridge list by bridge id (for example) and I then highlight a structure and then check out the bridge. After I check out the bridge, the bridge explorer resorts the bridge list based on the user preference of either ascending or descending BID. I don't like this behavior because the user then has to re-sort his/her bridge list. The only purpose I see for the BID is knowing the order bridges were created or imported - nothing more.


As a side issue, it would like to see the list be sorted by bridge id rather than BID as a default. Or better yet, a more robust explorer to let the user create his/her own items to sort by.


FROM:jduray DATE:05/31/2000 15:22:14

Investigate not requerying the db after the checkout. The other suggestions are enhancements. After the requerying after checkout is resolved change this to an enhancement request and mark as "Suspended".


FROM:jduray DATE:11/7/2003 7:55:00 AM


FROM:hlee DATE:1/9/2007 10:27:25 AM

Fixed for 5.6.0.

Changed to Enhancement request and marked as Suspended for the side issues.


FROM:hlee DATE:1/12/2007 4:06:40 PM


Incident 2726   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Getting rating results that were not asked for

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 6/1/2000 12:47:48 PM

Estimated Cost

Description FROM: tthompson DATE: 6/1/2000 7:37 AM


I noticed that when I analyzed a structure (LFD) from the Bridge Explorer, that it gives results that I did not ask for.


I selected 1 structure from the Explorer and selected RATE. By default I have the following: LFD , Inventory - HS20 vehicle, Operating - HS20, SD Type 3, SD Type 3S2, SD Type 3-2. After the analysis completed, I selected View Rating Results. And for the following windows Bridge Rating Result, Structure Rating Result, and Member Rating Result it gave me the 5 results I was asking for PLUS it gave me the inventory rating results for the 3 SD Type trucks. This appears to be similiar to Incident 103. There it was doing this when one analyzed a bridge from the bridge workspace. It turned out to be a problem where BRASS appears to analyze each vehicle for all load levels, regardless of which vehicles were chosen and whether it was inventory/operating levels. Can we make this fix also.


Side Note: Is this why the analysis seems slow? That BRASS is doing more work than is really necessary.

FROM: tthompson DATE: 6/1/2000 7:45 AM


FROM:jduray DATE:06/01/2000 08:58:44

Brian - please investigate and let me know what can be done.


FROM: tthompson DATE: 6/1/2000 8:43 AM

Brian - I noticed that when I reviewed the analysis results from the Bridge Workspace, that for LFD Critical Loads, I am getting many trucks and their results showing up under Inventory Load level, even though those trucks were not selected for Inventory Level (same happens at Operating Level). We may want to review all the reports and/or graphs for this. If one asks for a given truck at only one level (inv or op) and one should not to expect it to show up in other levels. I know about the limitations of BRASS, but VIRTIS should be reporting the results that were asked for.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 6/8/2000 1:10 PM

BRASS has no way to assign a particular truck to an inventory or operating rating. BRASS performs an analysis for each truck only once. It then combines the loads as necessary for both the inventory and operating ratings. Finally, BRASS passes both the inventory and operating results for each truck to the results object. It appears that when the bridge is rated from the Bridge Workspace, the GUI filters the rating results, however, when run from the Bridge Exporer, the GUI does not. I really don't know why there is any difference.


We need to correct this problem, so the user only sees the inventory rating results for the trucks assigned to inventory ratings and similar results for the operating rating. We could correct this problem in the GUI as was done for the Bridge Workspace. Alternatively, we could modify the dualinterface.f90 file with functions that determine if a truck is applied to a certain rating type (inventory, operating, both). This result could be utilized when writing data to the results object.


Note that the analysis may be slow due to the variable axle spacing of the HS20 truck.


FROM:jduray DATE:08/18/2000 15:07:19

We will investigate this a part of the management of analysis results enhancements.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/16/2005 11:27:30 AM

This is not a bug. Change to enhancement.


Incident 2732   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Need a New Parapet GUI

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/6/2000 4:05:19 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 6/6/2000 11:01 AM

KDOT has a parapet that we use often. It can not be described using the standard GUI that is supplied. I have attached a sketch that explains our dilemma. How do we get a GUI added??


FROM:jduray DATE:06/08/2000 10:37:02

Others have also requested different parapet configurations. This should be discussed with the TF and perhaps at the User Group meeting. I would like to add a parapet that is more generic. the most generic would be one that the user cna define the number of sides or the number of vertices and then give the coordinates of the verticies relative to the lower left corner wiht a coordinate of (0,0). this would take a little more effort for users to define but would be able to accomodate any type of parapet.


If the above is too comlex then we should poll the users to find out how many more dimensions are needed to cover most of the configurations. Maybe one with five point defining each side for a total of 10 points.


Incident 2737   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Loading for Optional Live Load Deflection

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/15/2000 8:26:51 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 6/15/2000 3:22 PM

During the IBC a designer from New Jersey asked this question.

Does Opis use “AASHTO 3.6.1.3.2 Loading for Optional Live Load Deflection Evaluation” or not. If yes – how do you turn it on or off? New Jersey uses this option.


FROM: dteal DATE: 6/21/2000 12:09 PM

Kansas Also uses this option.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 6/22/2000 2:41 PM

BRASS does not currently perform this computation. BRASS provides the live load deflections (reported for each live load separately), so there is enough information to do this check by hand. If you feel BRASS needs to perform this computation, please make a request.

FROM: dteal DATE: 6/23/2000 10:22 AM

Kansas feels that this computation should be done. How do we make a request?


FROM:jduray DATE:11/08/2000 12:11:33

You just did...


Brian - please check with Jay about this and if necessary forward to Wyoming as an enhancement request.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 11/20/2000 7:06 AM

I have forwarded this issue to Jay.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 11/28/2000 6:30 AM

WYDOT has approved this enhancement. It is currently scheduled for the Spring release of BRASS.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:07/10/2001 14:24:03

I have implemented live load deflection checks in BRASS-GIRDER(LRFD) for release with Version 4.1. Some export modifications are still required.


Jim - Have any methods been implemented/planned in Opis to control if this deflection check (or any limit state for that matter) is performed or not? Currently, concrete shear seems to be the only limit state we can control from Opis. Incidents 2513 and 3162 request the ability to control bearing. There are bound to be others more engineers begin using Virtis/Opis.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/11/01 10:35:03 AM

No


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:08/01/2001 10:50:27

I modified the export (BrassLrfdLoadControl.cpp) to generate the new LOAD-LIVE-DEFLECTION commands when a design type truck is detected. The two combinations that are exported are the truck alone (1.0*Truck) and 25% of the truck plus the lane (0.25*Truck+1.0*Lane). The second combination is only exported if a corresponding lane exists. The results can be seen in the specification check window.




FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, March 04, 2002 8:55:20 AM

This is an optional control - how do we turn it on or off?

The way the code reads for 3.6.1.3.2 is "If the owner invokes the optional live load deflection criteria". I can't find a way to turn it off and on?



FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, March 04, 2002 9:02:17 AM

I think this is releated to #3623


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Friday, June 28, 2002 12:46:05 AM

The specification check filter could be set to ignore the specification check, however, the design ratio could still show up as a fail.


FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:32:25 AM

As it stands right now, BRASS can handle this as OPTIONAL but the GUI can not. So we need to have the GUI give us this option.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:32:10 AM

This is incorrectly called a BRASS enhancement

Please see VI#7141 for clarification


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:37:51 AM

7141, 5008, 4979 & 2737 are all related to LL Deflection problems


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/12/2012 2:35:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Category from Enhance BRASS to Enhancement.


Incident 2738   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Find in the Spec Checker

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/15/2000 8:27:53 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 6/15/2000 3:23 PM

The Spec checker needs to have a “find” tool. It would be very handy to zero in on a key word.


Incident 2747   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Rating Results that persist but were not saved

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 6/19/2000 7:21:17 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: tthompson DATE: 6/19/2000 1:58 PM


I'm not sure if this is the same or similiar to VI 2708 and 2709.


1) I selected various bridges on the Bridge Explorer to do an overweight analysis.

2) I selected the RATE button, opened a template, made necessary adjustments (ie. selected the overweight vehicle that I had defined) and selected OK.


3) The analysis was performed for the bridges selected

4) I went to view the rating results (window Bridge Rating Results)and everything is okay.

5) I never saved any of the results (nor is there an option to do so like there is when within a given bridge).

5b) I exited from virtis/opis.

6) I had another overweight truck to analyze on a another group of bridges. (some of these bridges overlapped with the first batch of structures). I got back into virtisopis.

7) I selected the necessary bridges

8) I selected the RATE button, opened a template, made necessary adjustments (ie. selected the overweight vehicle that I had defined) and selected OK.

9) The analysis was performed for the bridges selected

10) I went to view the rating results (window Bridge Rating Results) and all of the results from the first overweight analysis were still showing up along with the latest/current.


I didn't think analysis results were going to persist in the database, unless the user explicitly saved those results. Why do these results persist? It is very impractical and extremely time consuming to go to each and every bridge and delete these results.


I would propose that there be a mechanism to remove/unload these rating results from the database (or at least not save these results when rating a batch of structures).


I see that based on Incident 2708 that the solution proposed was to manually delete these results. I find this as a very poor solution. It's just too time consuming to 1) keep track of the structures that you need to go to 2) to open up each structure and delete the necessary analysis results


I see that based on Incident 2709 that the solution proposed was to create a report with the much needed and awaited report generator. While this is a reasonable solution, it want to see better control over the data/results stored in the database.


A given overweight analysis may cross only a few structures or it may cross hundreds of structures. We need a mechanism to be able to batch rate these structures and be able to get results. A program can produce the best and most correct results, but if the user can not easily get to these results and present them in a logical, clean, and user definable manner - the program is pretty much useless (or it's use will be minimal).


FROM: tthompson DATE: 6/19/2000 2:18 PM


A secondary problem is that until a user manually deletes these rating results, a user can not remove the rating vehicle from the library of trucks. We have historically average about 600 to 700 overweight analysis requests a year. Luckily we have low ADT and truck traffic. But we don't want hundreds of vehicals stored in the truck libary. We will want to remove these at a fairly frequent basis (weekly), but it's going to take considerable effort to delete all these rating results to do so.


FROM:jduray DATE:06/20/2000 15:46:40

This is very important as you are aware. I will present to the TF to approve of a solution to this.


FROM:jduray DATE:06/27/2000 10:23:42


Incident 2754   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Vehicle Scale Factor for LRFD Fatigue Truck

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/23/2000 2:33:34 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 6/23/2000 9:29 AM

AASHTO 3.6.1.1.2 states that the Multiple Presence factors do not apply to the fatigue limit state for which one design truck is used, regardless of the number of design lanes. When calculating the live load distribution factor for one lane load, a multiple presence factor of 1.2 is used. To remove this multiple presence factor the live load scale factor should be coded as 1.0/1.2=0.8333. This scale factor is editable in Opis under the advanced features button of the analysis settings window.


In the BRASS LRFD Technical Manual under moving loads, page 2-14, it states: “For a fatigue truck, several items must be adjusted. The % impact defaults to 15%/33%=45.45% of the standard impact value, thereby making the fixed impact factor 0.15 (0.4545x.033). The scale factor defaults to 1/1.2 to remove the multiple presence factor from the distribution factors (see AASHTO 3.6.1.1.2). Finally, the number of lanes loaded defaults to one. The user may override any of these items.”


BRASS seems to neglect this command and use one lane load.


It is asking a lot of the user to adjust the scale factor under the advanced settings button. The engineer (user) is going to miss this one 9 times out of ten.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:06/28/2000 08:32:28

I'm not sure of exactly what your request is. When you say "BRASS seems to neglect this command...", are you saying that the export is generating the wrong commands? I found the following when I tested this:

For the LRFD Fatigue truck with nothing set on the Advanced window, the export generates the following command:

Truck-Code 5, FAT_....., 45.455, 1.0, MULT

The 45.455 is the % impact. The export gets this from the Member Alt Impact window if nothing is entered for the impact on the Advanced window. The 1.0 scale factor is used since nothing is entered on the Advanced window and MULT is used since the Structure has more than one lane and this is not overriden on the Advanced window. If you override data on the Advanced window, the export uses that override data to generate the Truck-Code command. That all seems to work as expected. If you think the export or BRASS is using the wrong command, please let me know the details.


Are you requesting that we default the Truck-Code command for a fatigue vehicle to use 0.83 scale factor and Single instead of Multi? That does seem to make sense but that would be a change request and I'll have to talk to Jim about that. I'm not sure if we want to set the scale factor and # lanes to something other than what we get from the structure and have it hidden on the Advanced window.

FROM: dteal DATE: 6/28/2000 4:01 PM

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking for. The user is very seldom going to catch this under the advanced window.

I don’t feel this is a change request, I think it’s an error. Opis isn’t passing on the correct scale factor for a fatigue truck when one lane is used.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:07/11/2000 08:03:00

Opis correctly passes on what is entered on the Advanced tab for the vehicle. If you select one lane and enter a scale factor in the Advanced tab, Opis will pass that on correctly to the export.

Jim, do you want the gui to set the scale factor to 0.83 on the Advanced tab if the user selects the Single Lane Loaded? I'm not sure if this will satisfy Dean since the user still has to open the Advanced tab to set the Single Lane Loaded checkbox.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:07/11/2000 08:32:56

I think this incident is related to 2766.


FROM: dteal DATE: 11/16/2000 10:51 AM

I think you hit it just right when you restated the request.


Default the Truck-Code command for a fatigue vehicle to use 0.83 scale factor and Single instead of Multi. We wouldn’t be hiding it on the Advanced tab. To my mind it is already hidden and it is our responsibility to see that it has the correct settings to start with.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/12/2012 2:42:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Category from Enhance BRASS to Enhancement.


Incident 2759   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Stiffness of multi-layered decks for Girder Distribution Factors

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/27/2000 4:19:37 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 6/27/2000 11:14 AM

I think Virtis is passing on the wrong structural thickness to BRASS for calculating stiffness for girder distribution factors.


Girder System Example(attached):

180 mm Total Deck Thickness on the Struc Typ Sec, Deck (Cont’d) tab

40 mm SFO Thickness on the Struc Typ Sec, Wearing Surface tab

210 mm Structural Thickness on the Deck Profile Deck Conc tab


180 mm deck + 40 mm SFO - 10 mm wear = 210 mm Structural Thickness


When you go to the *.DST output you find 180 mm for both structural thickness (ts) and for the thickness used to compute the dead load.

For computing the dead load it should use 180 mm deck + SFO of 40 mm and then the thickness used to compute stiffness should be ts = 210 mm.


FROM:jduray DATE:06/27/2000 16:14:51

Brian - please check this. Krisha checked on this and thinks we are passing the correct value and she checked with the engineers that are doing the ADOT ratings and they agreed. Please confirm.

FROM: dteal DATE: 6/27/2000 3:37 PM

I am not referring to an LFD rating. I am looking at the *.DST file created from a LRFD design review.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:06/28/2000 10:54:02

What I looked into is which deck thickness BRASS LFD and LRFD use when determining the stiffness of the member when calculating the moments and shears along the member. I found that by greatly varying the structural thickness on the deck profile window, I could achieve different LL moments and shears in Stage 3.

I did not check what is used in the .dst file.


FROM: bgoodrich DATE: 7/5/2000 1:28 PM

The export has no way of knowing that the information entered on the wearing surface tab is structural or just an overlay. There is no field in Opis for which to enter this information. Also, BRASS does not support a structural contribution from a wearing surface. For this case, you need to compute distribution factors by hand and enter them into Opis.


Jim - Do you agree?


FROM:jduray DATE:08/18/2000 14:40:21

Brian - please check with Jay on this. We discussed at User Grp mtg and I think he said the computation of DF is not very sensitive to this. I agree that if the user doesn't like the way BRASS or Virtis/Opis computes the distribution factors he/she should compute his/her own.


FROM:jduray DATE:08/22/2000 14:48:01

E-mail from jay:


Hi Jim:

It appears to me that we need to establish a workplan for this, gain

approval for any engine-related changes. Note that this is related to

TennDOT's issue where they want to remove a layer significant layer of

concrete and then redeck. We should examine both issues at the same time.

This will likely take modifications in the database, domain, GUI, and

engines.

Jay


FROM:jduray DATE:09/15/2000 13:03:19

From Jay:


This is definitely an enhancement as far as BRASS is concerned to get a

correct analysis and perform the spec checks. I can think of two options:


Option 1:

Enhance BRASS to provide another construction stage where the top concrete

or wearing surface layer is considered as a structural element. Enhancing

BRASS will not be a trivial issue because it effectively adds a

construction stage. This means array subscripts have to be increased,

hard-coded conditionals have to be found and changed, and the section

analysis has to be carefully reworked. New commands or parameters have to

be added and the manuals and help files have to be updated. I think this

enhancement is on the order of 4+ weeks for each BRASS program. The export

could most likely be enhanced in 2-3 days depending on the new commands or

parameters.


Also, if Virtis is modified to allow several (not just two) structural

layers, modifying BRASS as decribed above will be of little help. I don't

think we should just increase the number of stages by some arbitrary value.

Every time we add a stage to BRASS-GIRDER(LRFD), we increase the amount of

memory required for each point of interest, which is already large.


Option 2:

The export could be modified to merge the two structural layers (of

different thickness and material) into an "effective" structural layer.

This would require no changes to BRASS. Export work would take 3-4 days.

--------- end of Jay's response-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FROM:jduray DATE:11/08/2000 12:44:02

I think we need to discuss this with the Task Force since it is an enhancement.



FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:28:22 PM

I think #4315 is the same subject


Incident 2811   

Folder /Support Center

Subject User Group - Improve management of Analysis Output

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/23/2000 2:56:25 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:08/23/2000 10:51:59

This incident organizes several other incidents for resolution for version 4 and 4.1.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail from Brian:


I think we need a domain function for getting the export path and base file

name without any extension. There is a function called

GetInputOutputFilePath in UiAnalysisProgressDlg.cpp, BrassAnalysisCtl.cpp,

and MaderoAnalysisCtl.cpp that all do the same thing, so there is a

possiblity for inconsistencies to occur.


The path should contain the following (the only new item is the engine

string which can be retrieved using the domain):


Drive:\VirtisOpisPath\Bridge\StructureDef\Member\MemberAlt\Engine


The base file name should be derived from the member alternative name. Then

for Madero, I can append the vehicle name as we discussed.


Also, occasionally, I cannot open the LOG file with the Virtis viewer even

though it exists in Windows Explorer. I think the viewer may not use the

same method for constructing the path for which to open the LOG file. Here

is another case instance of where a domain function would be handy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The following needs to be scoped to improve the way we manage output:


Bridge Explorer:

1) a utility for viewing and maintaining the analysis events stored in the database. (80)

2) a utility for viewing and maintaining the engine output files on the disk. (80)

3) add the option to not write batch rating results to the database but still review them the way we do now (from the Bridge Explorer). (80) -----------------done for 4.1


Bridge Workspace:

1) a utility for viewing and maintaining the analysis events stored in the database. (40)

2) a utility for viewing and maintaining the engine output files on the disk. ----------------------done for 4.0



FROM:jduray DATE:12/04/2000 12:24:08

Need to add a user preference for the user to chose whether to delete analysis events from memory when a new analysis is performed. (24)


FROM:jduray DATE:5/21/02 9:08:31 AM

Some of this work was authorized by the Task Force and has been completed. The remaining work is not authorized, therefore, this incidnet is changed back to Suspended.


FROM:jduray DATE:5/22/02 11:39:55 AM


Incident 2817   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Metric Reinforcing Steel

Status Suspended

Submitted By Fempel, Glenn

Date Submitted 8/25/2000 8:02:00 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: gfempel DATE: 8/25/2000 2:42 PM

The steel suppliers in Canada supply metric bars. How can we select and use Metric Bars in our designs and ratings with the actual Metric bar properties not soft-metrification.


FROM:jduray DATE:08/28/2000 12:42:36

Please investigate adding hard metric bars to the db. Does BRASS need to be revised for this?


FROM:kkennelly DATE:08/31/2000 08:27:28

I think all we have to do to the db is add rows for the metric bars. Based on the help for BRASS LFD, I think it only does US bars. The BRASS commands use the bar size and a number of bars so the export would have to manipulate the metric bars into an equivalent US bar or BRASS LFD would need revised. BRASS LRFD help says it uses US, Metric ("hard" sizes like 10, 15, 20) and soft metric (10, 13, 16) which BRASS LRFD calls hybrid.


Incident 2837   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Preview Model Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Best, Richard

Date Submitted 9/14/2000 1:39:30 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: rmbest DATE: 9/14/2000 8:29 AM When a user first opens a bridge, it is difficult to tell at a glance what the model actually looks like. It takes about a dozen clicks in the right branches of the tree to get the particulars (Number of spans, beam types, cross section etc.). I would like to see an enhancement that with a single click on a button ('Preview Existing Model") it would display the cross section, framing plan etc. for the portion of the model that is marked as existing. It would be nice if this could be done from Bridge Explorer as well as Bridge Workspace.

FROM: rmbest DATE: 9/14/2000 8:49 AM


FROM: jduray DATE: 9/14/2000 11:27 AM

Need to discuss with Task Force.

FROM: rmbest DATE: 9/15/2000 9:26 AM Does that mean that it will be presented to the task force for consideration or does it mean that the Support Center is not the proper forum for enhancement ideas?


Incident 2839   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Reporting of Section Properties

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 9/14/2000 4:01:30 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: jduray DATE: 9/14/2000 10:53 AM

Provide reporting of section properties in Results Summary, maybe add graph of moment of inertia or section modulus to alert user where section properties change.


Incident 2847   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Display warning messages issued within BRASS output

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 9/15/2000 3:34:52 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:09/15/2000 11:31:52

I am looking at a BRASS LFD output file and buried within the file is a warning from BRASS:

*** WARNING ***

AT ANALYSIS POINT 105.00, THE WEB THICKNESS REQUIREMENT, AASHTO 10.48.5.1

EQ. (10-104) OR AASHTO 10.49.2 EQ. 10-120), HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. LONGITUDINAL

STIFFENERS THEREFORE REQUIRED. NO LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERS WERE ENTERED

AT THIS LOCATION,ENGINEER SHOULD REVIEW


We should have a window in Virtis where the user can see these types of warnings since most users don't wade through all of the BRASS output.


FROM:jduray DATE:09/22/2000 13:55:17

This could be added to the results object for viewing after the analysis is completed.


Incident 2848   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Analysis Chart Enhancements

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 9/18/2000 12:39:25 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:09/18/2000 08:37:23

Would be nice to be able to display the moment and shear diagrams for the sum of a group of loads (eg, select all individual DL1 and plot the sum of them) or plot the max LL moment and shear envelopes instead of the positive and negative moments individually.


Incident 2876   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement Request - Bride Explorer desktop

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 10/4/2000 2:14:00 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: tthompson DATE: 10/4/2000 8:58 AM


We need a more robust and user customizable desktop for the bridge explorer.

Currently a user can only display, sort and manipulate a limited selection of data items.


I would request at a minimum the following additional fields be able to be displayed, sorted and queried:

pontis_bridge.funcclass

pontis_bridge.kind_hwy

pontis_bridge.levl_srvc

pontis_bridge.dirsuffix

pontis_bridge.yearbuilt

pontis_bridge.yearrecon

pontis_bridge.designload

structure types



Yes, this is similiar to request 2704, submitted on 5-24-2000.

Hopefully in these 5 months, some progress has been made on this?


Incident 2958   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Timber Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By fulton, keith

Date Submitted 11/13/2000 5:13:53 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: kfulton DATE: 11/13/2000 9:55 AM


Since Madero requires all of the LL distribution factors (both single and multiple lanes) and I can not import my existing brass files I will be entering (if i decide to enter the bridges) all of the timber structures as girder systems. Because of this, I will let madero calculate the LL distribution factors. When we have a structure with broken/split/repaired stringer, we increase the wheel fraction to the adjacent stringers. I would like to have a field that allows for a percent increase/decrease to the wheel fraction and since I am asking for enhancements, I would also like to see a place to mark if the stringer is broken/split/cracked/repaired/etc.


FROM:jduray DATE:8/1/01 10:13:11 AM

Moved to Support Center.


Incident 2967   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Change Folder from Private to Public

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 11/15/2000 5:15:32 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: dteal DATE: 11/15/2000 11:06 AM

Is there any way to change a folder from private to public once it has been created? And visa-versa? Or does the folder have to be re-created, copy the contents to it, and then delete the original? Changing a radio button would be easier.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/16/2000 10:06:08

SOunds like a good idea to me. I will check on how to code that.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/22/2000 15:56:40

Looks like we could allow a user to change the folder, however, we would have to iterate the tree to check the folders along the branch.


We do not allow private folders to have public children. To keep with this (I think this makes sense) we must do the following:


When changing a private to public:

Check that no folders up the tree are private (a public folder may not have a private ancestor).


When changing a public to private:

Check that no folders down the tree are public (a private folder may not have public children).


Incident 2969   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement - Distribution Factor Manipulations

Status Suspended

Submitted By Shah, Shyam

Date Submitted 11/15/2000 7:51:59 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: snshah DATE: 11/15/2000 1:32 PM


When performing analyses for overweight permit vehicles, we are often required to recalculate distribution factors using methods besides the AASHTO standard equations, or reduce the impact factor. However, in VIRTIS, you must be able to check out a bridge in order to change the distribution or impact factors, which also allows you to alter the entire set of bridge data.


If possible, it would be quite useful if it were possible to manipulate impact and distribution factors without being able to change the structural data within the file. That way, a technician could manipulate these factors without worry that they could drastically alter the data file.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/11/2007 5:55:34 PM

Done for LFD. Need to do for LRFR.


Incident 2979   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Output viewer

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 11/17/2000 2:26:32 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:jduray DATE:11/17/2000 09:25:46

The output file tree is quite nice. Note that once that the file has been opened with Wordpad, perhaps that should be the default. ??


Incident 2987   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhance Tabular Reports window to allow selection of columns

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 11/21/2000 2:37:39 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/21/2000 09:32:55

When viewing analysis results (especially LRFD critical loads) it would be nice to show moment, then shear, then axial across the grid. We currently show moment, axial, shear. Once you scroll over to see shear, the span and location are no longer visible in the grid. It would be even nicer to be able to turn off some columns in the grid.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/21/2000 14:56:39

Joe - please arrange the columns the way Krisha suggests.


FROM:jihnat DATE:2/6/2003 3:06:21 PM

Done for version 5.0.0 beta build 4 (columns arranged Moment-Shear-Axial).

Incident now changed to Suspended/Enhancement for the second part of this request.


Incident 3017   

Folder /Support Center

Subject LRFD Analysis (Change validate to scan for largest end distance before asking user if they want to change the distance)

Status Suspended

Submitted By fulton, keith

Date Submitted 12/14/2000 8:58:52 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: kfulton DATE: 12/14/2000 1:32 PM

Please see attached lrfdtest.bbd file (4.0 beta 2) - member 2. ( file 2286.bbd is the 3.0 version)


In the deck profile - shear connectors tab, I get a message when ever I hit the OK or Apply button that states that the end distance is not the same as the beam length and if I want to change the length. If you look at the values, I have shear connectors defined for the full length. I would prefer not to have to hit the no button on the message popup everytime. In version 3.0, the an error occurs in the shear connect spacing export, but does work for 4.0beta2.


In 4.0beta2, I get an error about the diaphragm spacing needs to be greater than zero. The structure is a single span with one diaphragm in each bay.

Here is the error message I get:

Error generating LRFD schedule commands!

01:45:05 PM - Line 192 in source file D:\Virtis\GUI\abxbrass\BrassLrfdSchedules.cpp.


The number of diaphragm spaces must be greater than zero!

01:45:05 PM - Line 289 in source file D:\Virtis\GUI\abxbrass\EngineExport.cpp.


Error generating BRACING-SCHEDULE command!

01:45:05 PM - Line 465 in source file D:\Virtis\GUI\abxbrass\BrassBracingScheduleCmd.cpp.


No rows returned from database when expecting one row.

01:43:58 PM - Line 165 in source file E:\Virtis\Dev\data management\abmcfg\DmGroupAccessPrivilege.cpp.


No rows returned from database when expecting one row.

01:43:58 PM - Line 165 in source file E:\Virtis\Dev\data management\abmcfg\DmGroupAccessPrivilege.cpp.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/14/2000 16:01:46

Krisha - please investigate the problem in the deck profile window then assign to Brian.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/14/2000 16:29:55

I am unable to import this bridge into 4.0. Please try to export this bridge again and attach a new bbd file while we try to figure out why the import doesn't work.


FROM: kfulton DATE: 12/14/2000 5:01 PM

Try lrfd-40-beta-2.bbd file


FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/15/2000 08:04:06

I was able to import lrfd-40-beta-2.

1. The message you are getting in the Shear Connector window is telling you that the end distance for the next to last row is 15.7m. In the grids in the gui, if the end distance for an item is within 1' or 300 mm of the end of the beam, we issue a message to ask the user if they want the gui to change the length or spacing for them so the end distance matches the end of the beam. We did that because users previously requested help entering data particularly for skewed members that might have slightly different beam lengths. Since items can be entered in the grid in inconsecutive order, we do this check on every row in the grid, not just the last row. I'll check with Jim if we should change the behavior of the gui. I'm hesitant to do that because we would have to do that to every grid in Virtis and I don't want to introduce any widespread problems right before release.


2. The error message that you are getting about the diaphragms is "The number of diaphragm spaces must be greater than zero" not the spacing must be greater than zero. You have incorrect data entered in the Framing Plan window. For example, Girder Bay 1 has the following data:


Support Start Dist Left Start Dist Right Spacing # spaces

1 0 0 0 1

1 9.905 9.097 0 1

1 9.905 9.097 0 0 <----- invalid data

1 16 16 0 1


If you delete this row of data and the similar row in Girder Bay 2, Brass will run.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/15/2000 08:34:28

1. We are going to make this change for 4.1.


Programmer Resolution for 4.1: In the Validate functions for the grids in the gui in the if statement if the end distance is less than the end length of the beam within the max tolerance, call a function to scan every end distance in the grid and check if the current end distance is the largest of all the end distances. If it is the largest, issue the message to the user. If some other row contains the largest end distance, don't issue the message. (Note this scan function will have to add the span start distance to the end distance to get the true end distance from the left end of the beam for each row.)


Keith, I'm marking this incident as resolved until you read it and comment and then I will change its status to Assigned and Category to Enhancement to make sure it gets done for 4.1.


FROM: kfulton DATE: 12/15/2000 3:52 PM

The line you want me to remove from the diaphragm spacing is placed there by the diaphragm wizard.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/18/2000 10:28:35


FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/18/2000 13:29:40

Diaphragm wizard no longer creates a diaphragm range set with 0 number of spaces. Code fixed for Version 4.0 Release.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:5/17/01 2:01:19 PM

Estimate time for this enhancement:

24 hrs to make this change.


8 hrs to add and test function to UiMiniGrid to scan all rows for largest end distance.


Windows to visit to add this change:

Framing Plan Details:Diaphragms tab

Live Load Distribution: LRFD tab

Member Loads: 2 tabs

Deck Profile: 3 tabs

Haunch Profile

Lateral Support

Stiffener Ranges: Longitudinal tab**

Bracing Ranges: 2 tabs

Cross Section Ranges: 2 tabs

Beam Details: Stress Limit Ranges tab

Shear Reinforcement Ranges: 2 tabs


Estimate 1/2 hr /window or tab


**Note: Remove this validation completely from the Transverse Stiffener tab. You should never have a transverse stiffener at the very end of the beam, it would be a bearing stiffener.


Incident 3051   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Clarify "Member Alt. Types"

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 1/17/2001 1:38:13 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:01/17/2001 08:38:14

In the structure defintion window, change "Member Alt. Types" to "Member Alt. Types Display", "BWS Tree Display", or something that better indicates how these checkboxes are used (without going to the help).


Incident 3075   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Analysis Progress Dialog nees a filter for the warnings

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 1/26/2001 6:18:30 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:jduray DATE:01/26/2001 13:18:34

We need to be able to filter the warning messages based on low, medium and low coming from the export so users don't have to read all messages.


Also, consider adding to the preferences Analysis tab some options for messages to the Analysis Progress window.


Display Warnings

Low

Medium

High


Engine commands


Also consider color-coding the messages.


Incident 3091   

Folder /Support Center

Subject More timber bridge types should be added

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crovo, Daniel

Date Submitted 2/2/2001 5:06:51 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:dcrovo DATE:02/02/2001 12:06:52

In general, there are 4 types of timber bridges: (Referring to 'Timber Bridges' - U.S. Agriculture Department - 1992)

1. Glulam system: Deck: Glulam - Beam: Glulam

2. Sawn lumber system:

* Deck: Nail-laminated deck or Plank deck

* Beam: Sawn lumber

3. Longitudinal Deck Superstructures

4. Longitudinal Stress-laminated Deck Superstructures


Right now Virtis Version 4.0 just provides for rating of 'Sawn lumber system'. We have some timber bridges belonging to other types. Please add 3 more types on the nearest release


FROM:jduray DATE:02/07/2001 22:57:49

How many of each of these types do you have?



FROM:dcrovo DATE:02/08/2001 09:52:37

There are a total of roughly 170 timber superstructures in our inventory. There is no breakdown for these structures other than they are defined as timber stringers. Besides, we have one longitudinal glulam bridge constructed in 1999, one glulam bridge (glulam system) constructed in 2000.


Incident 3093   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add Report Tool for ASD analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crovo, Daniel

Date Submitted 2/5/2001 4:21:46 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:jihnat DATE:2/5/01 11:19:22 AM

The Report tool does LFD and LRFD but not ASD.

This incident was originally # 3092, but it had to be deleted then re-added due to database corruption.


Incident 3095   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Timber Framing Plan Detail

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/5/2001 5:50:07 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:02/05/2001 12:50:09

In the Structure Framing Plan Details – Layout Tab – Girder Spacing Orientation

There is a whole lot of excess real estate on this page. But when you view the Girder Spacing Orientation you have to use the up/down and right/left scroll bars to view the data. Can’t we make the window bigger?



FROM:jduray DATE:04/06/2001 14:27:15

You should resize the columns (horiz) so you won't have to scroll right/left.


We can modify the window to resize the grids vertically.


Incident 3150   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Printing Analysis Results – Print Preview

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 3/6/2001 5:23:22 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:03/06/2001 12:23:22

When you want to print Analysis Results – Print Preview is the most common action you would take first. There is no button for Printer Setup on this window. So to rotate to landscape you have to exit the print preview and select printer setup. Then exit that window and select print. Printer Setup should be a button on the print preview window.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/8/01 8:30:27 AM

Joe - please chcek into what we have to do to provide this capability.


FROM:jihnat DATE:3/9/01 10:38:28 AM

The print preview toolbar is owned by the undocumented MFC class CPreviewView. Implementing this change would involve overriding that class, creating our own toolbar resource, and handling the toolbar message(s). We would also need to override the OnFilePrintPreview function in order to tell MFC to use our new CPreviewView class.



FROM:jduray DATE:04/06/2001 14:20:51




FROM:dteal DATE:09/21/2001 14:16:42

Seems to me what I am asking for here is functionality like a normal windows GUI. With a windows compatible program I would expect a print preview option for any window I would like to print.


FROM:jihnat DATE:9/21/2001 2:43:15 PM

I quickly checked three Microsoft programs: Excel has a Page Setup button on the Print Preview window, Word and WordPad do not.



FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, September 05, 2003 11:52:44 AM

Word has a "Print Preview" selection.


Incident 3151   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Printer Setup – Landscape

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 3/6/2001 5:24:33 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:03/06/2001 12:24:34

Every time I want to print – it is usually (more often than not) a table from the Analysis Results. Every time have to go to the print setup and change it to landscape. There should be a default someplace for printer settings. I have to change it to landscape every time I print from a new bridge or log back in.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/8/01 8:29:28 AM

Joe - let's get this in the next service pack.


FROM:jihnat DATE:3/9/01 8:44:43 AM

Dean, have you considered changing the default for your printer in the Windows Control Panel?




FROM:dteal DATE:03/09/2001 10:21:09

I don’t want to globally change the printer settings. I only want to change them in VirtisOpis. Is this what your asking?


FROM:jihnat DATE:3/9/01 10:31:56 AM

That was what I was asking. My thought was that a single flag (portrait or landscape) within VirtisOpis might make sense for a user like yourself who prints mainly in landscape. But for a user who prints about equally in both portrait and landscape, a single flag doesn't really help them at all. A more comprehensive change would be to store and use the last orientation for each type of document (Analysis Results, BWS Report, etc.) within VirtisOpis.


FROM:jihnat DATE:3/9/01 4:01:05 PM

MFC has no ready mechanism for doing this.


Incident 3153   

Folder /Support Center

Subject A field for user to control if fatigue should be considered in the controlling rating

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 3/7/2001 3:39:41 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dteal DATE:03/07/2001 10:39:41

On a permit vehicle which is included in rating vehicle summary list – how would one tell Virtis not to allow fatigue to control the rating. I would assume that in the advanced button for the vehicle properties would have been the place to set this. We already have Single Lane Loaded, Scale Factor and Impact modifiers in this window.


Is there some way to accomplish not letting fatigue control the rating?


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:03/08/2001 15:18:21

Virtis does not provide a field for controlling if fatigue should be considered in the controlling rating. BRASS currently defaults the allowable fatigue stress for every POI to a large number, so it will not control the rating for any truck. If you wish to change a value for a particular POI, you have to fill out the Fatigue tab for the POI. Even if Virtis had this field, BRASS would not be able to control fatigue on a per-truck basis.


Jim - I would think this would be a Virtis issue because it deals with rating in general, i.e., a user wants to ignore the fatigue rating for every engine. Comments?


FROM:jduray DATE:3/12/01 1:22:41 PM

Perhaps we need a checklist of what limit states to rate for?


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:04/09/2001 18:27:57

I agree. Depending on the level of detail, we might need to organize a different checklists for LFD and LRFD (when adopted). For steel, there are fatigue checks for shear connectors, rebar, web shear fatigue, flexural fatigue in flanges, etc. For strength: flexure, shear, bearing, and flexure-shear interaction. For service: flange stresses and crack control.


Jim - I am assigning this issue to you because changes will have to be made to Virtis first.



FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, January 27, 2003 9:23:31 AM

Are you requesting for any information from me??


FROM:jduray DATE:9/5/2003 12:03:30 PM

It looks to me as though we have the info we need for now. We need to prepare a list of possible limit states for rating and estimate the cost for implementing.


FROM:hlee DATE:6/4/2004 3:24:33 PM

Changed subject from "Fatigue – Permit Vehicles" to "A field for user to control if fatigue should be considered in the controlling rating".


Incident 3172   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject P/S design tool will harp strands through void

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 3/26/2001 12:45:47 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:03/26/2001 08:45:48

Entered for Jay Puckett:

The P/S design tool will harp strands through the void of a box beam.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/27/01 9:40:44 AM

Krisha - we need to discuss how we can make the strand arrangement logic available to the tool.


Incident 3205   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Output summary

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 5/1/2001 12:52:36 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:5/1/01 8:50:14 AM

I received the following e-mail from Chad Grinsteiner of White Engineering Assoc.


-----begin e-mail ------------


Jim, Brian & Jay:


Thank you for your attention into our concerns about reports within Opis. We

understand Oklahoma DOT is very interested in using Opis/Virtis as a long

term design/rating solution, so we hope our feedback helps you to meet

ODOT's needs as well as our own.


In its simplest form, what we would like to see is a SINGLE report to

provide documentation, or "snapshot", of the input and results. This would

provide the designer a means to communicate with a checker, reviewer,

detailer and/or client the information available to and used by the

designer. This documentation would be referenced to and relied upon during

the design phase much like a contractor uses a signed and sealed set of

plans during the construction phase.


This report documentation would contain: information to verify correct

input, some basic analysis results (to aid in the design of substructure

elements, to help derive independent checks of the engine, to perform checks

not done by the engine, and to aid in detailing), and concise design results

to indicate the design meets the specifications. This allows the design

checker/reviewer to be reassured that the input being checked matches the

output, and the detailer to be certain that what is being drawn matches what

is intended by the designer.


Ideally, this would all be contained in as minimal of output as possible.

This aids in reviewing the design and prevents "information overload" while

wading through a sea of numbers for something simple.


Jay, you brought up a good point about how report inconsistency isn't much

different in other software, and I largely agree with you. However, most of

the programs have somewhat simple reporting features (even when compared to

Opis in its current state) where the input is echoed in a simple ASCII

output file which is generated every time the program is run. This

simplistic model does have a level of unintended "security" in that the

input echoed in the output report is "locked" with the results. If someone

were to change the input, the new results would not be available until the

program is run again. The new output would then also contain an echo of the

new input. The new input is always available to compare to a previous

analysis report's input for changes. Furthermore, having such documentation

would be beneficial in verifying input has not been altered when output

"suddenly" appears different, such as when an analysis engine has been

updated.


As a side note, Integrated Engineering Software's Visual Analysis has a nice

feature where the program warns the user whenever an change in input will

affect the results. If the user continues with the change, the program

purposely "loses" the previous analysis results that were affected. The user

is then forced to re-run the analysis and a version number of the analysis

is updated and stored along with the date and time when the analysis was

performed. It is the responsibility of the user, however, to produce reports

which contain both the input and results. Currently, Opis provides no

indication that the current bridge workspace matches the current analysis

information, inviting human errors related to: "I swore I re-analyzed after

I changed that."


Also, I believe Opis/Virtis was developed with the "paperless" office in

mind where designers would share the database information, and not reams of

paper. I sympathize with that goal and I am not trying to dilute that goal.

However, there should be a simple, concise, yet thorough, "master design

document" which is easily transferable, either by hardcopy or electronic

means. The *.xml reports currently generated seem to support both mediums.

Perhaps enabling the database to store such (smaller) files would be

beneficial since storing results to the database is inefficient at this

point.


As for the detailed content of this so-called "master design document", what

we would like to see probably is not satisfactory for others, which puts

software writers like yourself in an undesirable position. Opis has some

customizable output levels in the analysis reports, and this philosophy

could be extended to an all-inclusive report, which you probably have

already decided upon. The end user is then at least partially responsible

for the size of the final report (depending upon how much scalability is

provided by the software). While this may be asking much at this point, such

a function is in line with many of advanced features available in a piece of

software like Opis/Virtis.


A listing to help you understand what we look for during typical designs

follows. An "R"(equired) indicates we need this info for every design, while

an "O"(ptional) shows we occasionally need this info.


Steel Girders:


1. Echo of input (include analysis version, date, time and engine

version)(R)

2. Calculated section properties (non-composite, short-term composite,

long-term composite)(O)

3. Calculated distribution factors (moment, shear, fatigue, deflection)(O)

4. Calculated loads not input (slab, FWS, railings)(O)

5. Total unfactored DC analysis results at span points (moment, shear,

deflection)(O)

6. Total unfactored DW analysis results at supports (reaction, rotation)(R)

7. Total unfactored DC analysis results at span points (moment, shear,

deflection)(O)

8. Total unfactored DW analysis results at supports (reaction, rotation)(R)

9. Total unfactored HL-93 analysis results at span points (moment, shear,

deflection for axle, lane, impact)(R)

10. Total unfactored HL-93 analysis results at supports (reaction, rotation

for axle, lane, impact)(R)

Note: Indication of controlling axle effect for HL-93 (i.e. tandem or design

truck) is helpful.

11. Total unfactored P(ermit) V(ehicle) analysis results at span points

(moment, shear, deflection for axle, lane, impact)(R)

12. Total unfactored PV analysis results at supports (reaction, rotation for

axle, lane, impact)(R)

13. Total factored limit state results at section points (O)

14. Constructibility/slenderness status at span points (R)

15. Composite and non-composite flexural capacities at span points (R)

Note: Calculation of % utilization is helpful (i.e. max. factored

effect/capacity)

16. Service II limit state status at span points (R)

17. Fatigue limit state status/categorization at span points (R)

18. Maximum web stiffener spacing (or shear capacities) at span points (R)

19. Maximum shear connector spacing (based on strength and fatigue) at span

points (R)


Merlin-DASH is a decent example for a design report. DASH has only two

levels of output (minimal or detailed), and we find the minimal report meets

most of our needs. I've attached an example of the minimal report for your

use (std100e.res in ASCII format). Some comments for the minimal report can

be listed as follows:


1. Page breaks waste space.

2. Echo of card-based type input is rather dated for today's technology and

isn't well-suited for checking. Less passive format is easier to interpret.

3. Explanation of input parameters (necessary for card based input) is

helpful, but consumes valuable output space.

4. No section properties available.

5. No reaction output without impact (needed for elastomeric bearing

design).

6. Stress output at limit states (other than Service II) is not needed.



Prestressed Concrete Girders:


1. Echo of input (include analysis version, date, time and engine

version)(R)

2. Calculated section properties (non-composite, short-term composite,

long-term composite) (O)

3. Calculated distribution factors (moment, shear, fatigue, deflection)(O)

4. Calculated loads not input (slab, FWS, railings)(O)

5. Total unfactored DC analysis results at span points (moment, shear,

deflection)(O)

6. Total unfactored DW analysis results at supports (reaction, rotation)(R)

7. Total unfactored DC analysis results at span points (moment, shear,

deflection)(O)

8. Total unfactored DW analysis results at supports (reaction, rotation)(R)

9. Total unfactored HL-93 analysis results at span points (moment, shear,

deflection for axle, lane, impact)(R)

10. Total unfactored HL-93 analysis results at supports (reaction, rotation

for axle, lane, impact)(R)

Note: Indication of controlling axle effect for HL-93 (i.e. tandem or design

truck) is helpful.

11. Total unfactored P(ermit) V(ehicle) analysis results at span points

(moment, shear, deflection for axle, lane, impact)(R)

12. Total unfactored PV analysis results at supports (reaction, rotation for

axle, lane, impact)(R)

13. Total factored limit state results at section points (O)

14. Initial concrete stresses at transfer (R)

15. Anchorage zone stirrup checks (R)

16. Debonded strand detailing checks (R)

17. Final concrete stresses under dead and prestress loads only at span

points (R)

18. Final concrete stresses under 1/2 DL & PS plus live load at span points

(R)

19. Final concrete stresses under dead and live load at Service III limit

state at span points (R)

20. Composite and non-composite flexural at span points (R)

Note: Calculation of % utilization is helpful (i.e. max. factored

effect/capacity)

21. Minimum and maximum reinforcing limits at span points (R)

22. Cracking moment computations at span points (especially debonded zones)

(R)

23. Maximum beam stirrup spacing (or shear capacities) at span points (R)

24. Maximum interface stirrup spacing at span points (R)

25. Summary of prestress losses (R)


PennDOT PSLRFD has a good example for a design report. PSLRFD has scalable

levels of output. I've attached an example of a typical report for your use

(std4-95i.out in ASCII format). Overall, the PSLRFD output has sufficient

information in an easy to find format. The only complaints we have are that

the page breaks waste space and some arrangement of output does not make

efficient use of the sheet (necessitating more sheets).


Jim, I understand from our phone conversation that Opis/Virtis will begin to

have better report capabilities starting with the November 2001 release for

input and the 2002 release for analysis and design results. I hope this

information will help you. If you should have any questions about these

issues or would like some additional feedback for reports, please feel free

to write back or call at 405-528-4074.


Thank you for listening,


Chad Edward Grinsteiner, P.E.

Project Engineer

White Engineering Associates, Inc.

------ end of e-mail -----------------------------------------------------------------


Incident 3208   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Analysis Progress Window – Print Selection

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 5/1/2001 4:49:04 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:05/01/2001 12:49:04

Can not use the “Print Selection” option in the Analysis Progress Window. I highlighted the text I wanted and then hit the Print Button. Print Selection was not available.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:5/1/01 5:04:28 PM

What do you mean by Print Selection?

There is no Print Selection button on the window.



FROM:dteal DATE:05/02/2001 08:37:03

After you run an Analysis – There is PRINT button at the lower right corner of the Analysis Progress Window.


If you:


1. First highlight some of the text from this window you would like to print

2. Click on the Print button (lower Left)

3. Microsoft Windows will bring up a Print window. In the middle left area there will be 4 radio buttons (Print All, Current Page, Selection and Page #’s)

4. Of these 4 selections, only “Print All” is available. I would like to print only the highlighted (selected) text.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:8/8/01 1:31:29 PM

Jim, please advise. Please set the priority for this incident.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/12/2005 11:48:38 AM

We should open the Print Dialog to allow the user to select what (All or Selection) and where it should be printed.


Incident 3238   

Folder /Support Center

Subject View Schematics Overlapping Text

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/8/2001 4:37:42 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:06/08/2001 12:37:43

For the attached .bbd file, please highlight the Wizard Alternative for Member 1. Then select View Schematic from the tool bar. (I used SI if it makes any difference?)


Look at the Text for Dimensioning the Vert. Shear Reinf. Spacing. The text writes over itself making it unreadable. We know that when stirrups are being entered they will most likely be entered with some variable spacing. You need to come up with a way for the designer to see the ranges (text) they entered.


Incident 3244   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Warn users when a value is changed that affects computed values

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 6/12/2001 8:44:27 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:jduray DATE:8/26/2003 11:53:03 AM


FROM:jduray DATE:12/12/2007 8:42:39 AM

We need to define the scope for this.


Incident 3253   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Additional P/S Shape window validation needed

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 6/25/2001 7:07:51 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:jduray DATE:6/25/01 3:04:15 PM

The P/S beam shape window should catch invalid shape errors such as: do not allow a particular fillet/taper if the corresponding flange width is less than or equal to the web thickness.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/12/2007 8:48:15 AM

There may be situations where dimensions entered by the user may appear to be invalid but are necessary sot he user can "trick" the program (probably not good to be trying to trick the program).


Incident 3264   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add user validation indicator to bridge and perhaps structure defs and member alts

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 7/6/2001 3:56:30 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:jduray DATE:7/6/01 11:45:03 AM

We need a way for a user to indicate that a bridge has been checked and the description in the BridgeWare db is correct. Need security on this and configuration for Bridge Explorer to handle bridges that are not validated:


If any bridge in a list of bridges is not valid:

BE could refuse to rate any bridge

BE could skip non-valid bridges

BE could rate all and report with an indicator those which are not valid


Incident 3268   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add warnings to Virtis if spec-checks fail

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 7/6/2001 5:58:31 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:jduray DATE:7/6/01 1:55:47 PM

We need to pass info back from the engine to indicate if the rating results are "conditional" or if the engine detects a situation while performing the rating that is not reflected in the rating factor.


Incident 3270   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Change the schematic toolbar button to display a list of possible schematics

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 7/6/2001 6:02:39 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description


Incident 3274   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Need validation for P/S beam shapes windows

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 7/6/2001 8:31:59 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:07/06/2001 16:32:01

This issue was discovered as part of Incident 3246. A user tried entering a "Double Tee" P/S I-beam shape by using the lower part of the web as bottom flange. Therefore, the web and "bottom flange" have the same width. Additionally, the user specified a fillet/taper height of 1mm, which cannot exist because the fillet/taper will have no width. Some validation should be performed in the P/S Beam Shapes windows when the user enters invalid dimensions.


Incident 3282   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Need a dialog for controlling the event history

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 7/31/2001 5:55:17 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:jduray DATE:7/31/01 1:32:26 PM

This was requested by Paul Jensen. The event table can grow in size without restriction. Paul would like to see a configuration setting that controls the number of modification events preserved in the table. The other events are controlled by the user (rating and analysis events). The modification events are chained (recursive). We need a dialog that allows the user (administrator) to specify how long or how many (or both) modification events to keep in the chain for an item.


We also need a purge process to purge modification events older than some date and/or keep only the most recent n events.


Incident 3284   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Simplify the BWS tree by hiding alternatives

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/1/2001 2:05:20 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description


Incident 3305   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhance the schematics for data-entry

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/10/2001 12:32:23 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:8/10/01 8:30:31 AM

This request came from TN workshop Aug 8-9, 2001.


Incident 3411   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Ped. Rail Base

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/10/2001 12:32:26 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:dteal DATE:10/10/2001 08:32:26

It has become apparent that we need more options in the GUI to define the pedestrian rail correctly. The concrete base is the problem. We can define it’s width but not it’s height. The load can be handled just fine under “Railing Load”. What the users are asking for is to get the GUI to represent the correct image for the rail base height.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/11/01 12:49:48 PM

Mehrdad - I need an estimate for doing this...db through domain, GUI, LRFD and LFD/ASD export and help.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:10/12/2001 4:56:16 PM

16 hours for bridge and library:

Database

Domain, De, De, Dm Classes

Data Dictionary

GUI - Properties windows and Schematics.


Incident 3425   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Wire Mesh Reinforcement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Best, Richard

Date Submitted 10/12/2001 1:24:30 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:rmbest DATE:10/12/2001 09:24:30

Enhancement request - Provide an option for wire mesh used as shear reinforcement in prestressed deck (box) beams with circular voids.


Incident 3511   

Folder /Support Center

Subject 4.1 Beta 2: BWS Report Tool - Restructure window similar to Windows Explorer

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 11/12/2001 5:29:09 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:11/12/2001 12:29:11

The more I use the BWS Report Tool window, the more I think it should be restructured like a Windows Explorer, i.e., a folder tree on the left and the list of attributes on the right. I find it cumbersome to scroll up or down through several attribute names just to get to another folder. If the user turns on attributes within a folder, the folder could be yellow. If none have been turned on, the folder could be red.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/21/2001 08:13:24

This sounds like a major change. Since it doesn't involve the report definition we can address in a future release if necessary. I suspect the users will have other suggestions for improving the tool. We should wait for the users to use the tool and submit comments.


Incident 3550   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Prestress Design Tool Distribution Factors

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 12/26/2001 3:08:43 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/26/2001 10:05:28 AM

Request for PS Design Tool to use lever rule and actual Kg/12Lts^3 value when computing LRFD distribution factors for user. Second part of email entered as separate incident.

Submitted on behalf of Jeff Smith via email 12/19/01:


Jim,

I haven't had much time to work with the latest beta version, Release Candidate 1, but I did have a chance to look at Incident 3329. This is an incident I had sent in to Krisha. It appears that this particular incident can be considered as accepted. However, I have some concerns about the prestress design tool underestimating the number of strands, particularily when either the lever rule or rigid body give a significantly higher distributiuon factor compared to the formulas and using a value of 1 for Kg/12Lts^3.


<>

I also encountered an interesting schematic while entering a 120 ft simple span with 4 Type VI girders at 9.5 ft spacing with a 4.75 ft overhang. Attached is a screen shot of the resulting framing plan. This was corrected after completing the cross section input. In case you're wondering, I was running under Windows 2000.


Jeff Smith

Structural Design Engineer

jeff.smith@fhwa.dot.gov

Ph. (404) 562-3905

Fax (404) 562-3700


FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/26/2001 10:10:02 AM


Incident 3584   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Parabloic Haunch Bottom Slab Thickness Variation

Status Suspended

Submitted By Pierce, Ron

Date Submitted 2/5/2002 11:19:27 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:rpierce DATE:02/05/2002 18:19:27

Incident 2, Please add the ability to handle varying bottom slab thickness in Parabolic Haunches. (Reinforced Concrete)


FROM:jduray DATE:2/12/02 8:39:38 AM

I don't understand this request. We only handlt one slab...what do you mean by a bottom slab?



FROM:rpierce DATE:02/13/2002 11:29:05

Jim the structure I am analizing is a Reinforced Concrete Box Girder that has top and bottom slabs. The bottom slab in the Parabolic Haunch varies in Thickness.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/14/2002 10:42:51 AM

I spoke with Ron about this issue by phone a couple of weeks ago. I think he is modeling the rc box girder as an rc I beam. Our gui lets the user vary the bottom flange thickness but BRASS doesn't accept that.



FROM:rpierce DATE:Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:27:21 PM

Jim I am refering to Reinforced Concrete Box Girder Structure. I modeled the Corss Section as an I section with variable bottom Slab thickness at the Pier that is in a parabolic Huanch. thisd can not be modeled by

Virtis Becuase the web is not parabloic shape because of the bottom slab thickness.


Incident 3589   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Post Tensioned Concrete

Status Suspended

Submitted By Pierce, Ron

Date Submitted 2/5/2002 11:31:46 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:rpierce DATE:02/05/2002 18:31:46

Please add Post Tensioned concrete to Girders & Frames types for analysis. In Arizona most urban structures are Two span Post Tensioned Box Girder Frames. On the interstate their are Post Tensioned Frames as well as Post Tensioned Box Girders.


Incident 3607   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Parabolic Harping of Prestressing Strand

Status Suspended

Submitted By Pierce, Ron

Date Submitted 2/19/2002 10:06:26 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description Please add parabolic harping for strand layout in Virtis. BRASS Girder will perform stress calculations with this type of Harping. Please make it avialable in virtis.



FROM:awaheed DATE:Monday, September 08, 2003 12:30:48 PM

Can Virtis handle parabolic prestressing strands in post-tensioned concrete girders? Is there any enhancement planned to handle transverse post-tensioning of the slab on girders?


Amjad Waheed, PE

Ohio DOT


Incident 3608   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Sorting/Finding/Filtering Structure Types with File Properties

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/20/2002 3:02:01 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, February 20, 2002 10:02:15 AM

As our bridge database grows it is evident that we need more ways to search and group our structures. When initially entering a bridge into the database, if the user doesn’t add a code of some sort to the “Bridge Name” it is tough to locate bridges of certain types.


In the Superstructure Definition GUI we already have Member Alt. Types (Steel, P/S, R/C, Timber) selected. We nee to sort/filter using them.




FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, February 20, 2002 10:10:15 AM

This was not 4.1 Beta - it is Release 4.1


FROM:jduray DATE:2/20/02 1:39:55 PM

Do you have any thoughts on how we should accomplish this? How would you like to handle bridges consisting of multiple structures of differing member alt types? Categorizing bridges based on the types of member alternatives is rather complicated (but possible). We would have to look at the bridge alts marked as "Existing", the structure alts marked as "Existing", the structure def assigned to the structure alt and the member alts marked as "Existing".



FROM:smample DATE:Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:51:42 PM

It would also be helpful to include the "Bridge Completely Defined" information in the Bridge Explorer window.



FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, February 26, 2002 12:09:48 PM

I thought the Report Tool may lend itself to helping out here but I think expanding the file properties filtering is a better answer.


I can see the complications coming from differing member alternatives. Here is an example of why expanding the filtering/searching capabilities is needed. I need to find a bridge from a 5,000 bridge database that I could use as a template for starting a 3 span welded plate girder of current design practices (built in the last 5 years). A bridge just like the one I need to design may already be in the database, I just need a tool to find it.


You wanted thoughts on how to accomplish this – Does it matter if this 3 span welded plate structure is one of the member alternatives. No – we should be able to find all instances no matter where they live.


Incident 3609   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Sorting by Users ID

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/20/2002 3:08:51 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, February 20, 2002 10:08:54 AM

As our User List grows to over 50 users we need a way to re-sort the user list alphabetically using User ID and not last name. I know the User List is sorted by Last Name right now. When you look at the User List in that order it appears not to have any order. With a growing user list it is becoming harder and harder to remember the last names associated with a user ID.


FROM:jduray DATE:2/20/02 1:54:19 PM

Add a Configuration Browser tab to the preferences dialog. On that tab put radio buttons for the sort order (Lastname, UserId).


FROM:jduray DATE:5/21/02 10:25:41 AM


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 6/3/2009 10:47:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG 6/2009

At minimum a short term help would be to display first and last name in addition to userid.

This would be a big help for the administrator.


Example

User ID - LastName, FirstName

or

LastName, FirstName (User ID)


Incident 3658   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Make New Member Alternative Dialog easier to use

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 3/14/2002 1:02:44 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/14/2002 9:08:20 AM

Can we make the New Mbr Alternative dialog easier to use by either:

1. Replace the drop down list for type with bitmaps of the beam shapes.

2. Make the drop down lists wider so users can easily distinguish between beam types (users in training have a lot of problems with rc i beams and t beams)


FROM:jduray DATE:3/20/02 7:49:03 AM

Sounds good to me...sketch up some ideas and give me an estimate of the time to do the bitmap option.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/21/2002 1:55:12 PM

Pdf of mockups is attached. I think it should take about 12 hours.


Incident 3659   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Add a button to the Find Bridge dialog to add the result set bridges to the current folder

Status Suspended

Submitted By Pierce, Ron

Date Submitted 3/14/2002 1:59:38 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:rpierce DATE:Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:59:38 AM

Currently, It is not easy to use the find function and then it to a rating folder. For instance, I had an overload permit that three structures on the same route between two mile posts. I used the find function to locate the files I wanted, but I could not copy them to special folder to run the overload vehicle on. It seems that this should be an avialble option. I talked to Gale Barnhill and he agreed that this should be an option as well. The work around was I had to use the copy and paste from the edit window. It would be easiler like if the copy and paste were avialble on the right click event as with most MS applications. The on line help did not discuss this option very well.



FROM:gbarnhill DATE:Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:05:30 PM

Is it possible to add a button for ADD TO CURRENT FOLDER on the FIND BRIDGE dialog ??


FROM:jduray DATE:3/20/02 7:50:34 AM

You can use the New Folder dialog to create a new folder.


I agree you should be able to ...We will check on why we can not.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/20/02 3:49:30 PM

Ron is asking for a button on the Find Bridge dialog to add the result set bridges to the current folder (only for list folders).



FROM:rpierce DATE:Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:32:19 PM

Jim , thats is exaclty what I was talking about. What is going to take to add this?


Incident 3781   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Temporary construction loads (load staging) are not handled

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lutgen, Ed

Date Submitted 6/5/2002 3:49:15 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:elutgen DATE:Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:49:15 AM

There is no way now to input temporary construction loads to be used only on stage 1 and to be removed on the following stages.


Incident 3838   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Default load cases should be configurable in the Configuration Browser

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/12/2002 2:00:56 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:jduray DATE:8/12/02 9:58:20 AM

From the 2002 User Group training:


Add a window to the Configuration Browser for modifying the Default Load Cases. Should also add security.


FROM:jduray DATE:8/12/02 10:00:43 AM


Incident 3840   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Put BRASS default shear method to use in Configuration Browser

Status Suspended

Submitted By Koenig, David

Date Submitted 8/12/2002 2:31:25 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/12/2002 10:06:09 AM

Requested by Dave Koenig at the Virtis 2002 User Group meeting:

Once users are given the option in Virtis to select the default shear method to use in BRASS LFD (I think that is in a separate incident), this default method should be stored in the Configuration Browser so everyone in the state uses the same method.


FROM:hlee DATE:9/24/2007 9:18:07 AM

Related to Incident 3865.


Incident 3846   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Schematic View of girder details at section changes

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/12/2002 7:40:27 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, August 12, 2002 3:40:32 PM

Enhancement request for Mark Studt, Montana DOT, 2002 UserGroup Meeting

mstudt@state.mt.us


Would like the capability to view cross section plate girder profiles at any change of section.


Incident 3854   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Transverse Stiffener Wizard - input multiple groups of equal spacing

Status Suspended

Submitted By Koenig, David

Date Submitted 8/15/2002 6:33:58 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:dkoenig DATE:Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:33:59 PM

We would like to see a wizard developed for input of transverse stiffeners on plate girders. We would like to see it have the same functionallity as the diaphragm wizard with the changes we have proposed in the previous incident. Example: be able to input multiple groups of stiffeners along the length of a girder.


Incident 3858   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Differ Support Conditions with Construction Stages

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/16/2002 7:32:11 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, August 16, 2002 3:32:11 PM

UserGroup 2002

Please add the ability to change the support conditions for the different stages of construction.


Incident 3859   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Different Dist. Factors for Inv. And Operating

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/16/2002 7:33:47 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, August 16, 2002 3:33:47 PM

UserGroup 2002

Add the ability to have different distribution factors for Inventory and Operating


FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/23/2002 8:23:57 AM

Could you tell me where in the specs it says you can use different distribution factors for Inventory and Operating rating?



FROM:jcarney DATE:Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:16:13 AM

Kristina:

We recently came across this situation and ended up running the program twice to handle the situation. The beam under consideration was located beneath the curb line. In Mass., for rating purposes, a wheel load is considered to be applied at a distance of 2 feet from the curb line or face of bridge rail at inventory level. Using simple beam distribution between the curb beam and next interior beam often provide a lower distribution factor for this situation. If the curb reveal is 12" or less the sidewalk is considered to be mountable by traffic and the higher distribution factor provided using S/5.5 would then be used at operating stress level. I think that the added flexibility of being able to input different live load distribution factors at inventory and operating stress levels would be very helpful in these situations.


Incident 3860   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Longitudinal Symmetry Option

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/16/2002 7:34:35 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, August 16, 2002 3:34:35 PM

UserGroup 2002

Add the ability to select longitudinal symmetry along a beam: Steel, PS & RC


Also see 2190 for symmetry of shear reinforcing


FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, August 19, 2002 12:45:49 PM

Longitudinal Symmetry would also be a great aid when doing a design review. If you have an 8 span symmetrical structure, why waste time waiting for your pc to finish the analysis of the 4 symmetrical spans??


FROM:jduray DATE:11/7/02 11:19:31 AM

We discussed at the UG (with Kristy from NE) the symmetry would be handled in wizards that generate the "other half" so the db would have a full description.


Incident 3864   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Define a Member Alt as a channel

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/16/2002 7:37:06 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, August 16, 2002 3:37:07 PM

UserGroup 2002 – Dave Koenig, MODOT

Need the ability to define a member Alt. As a channel


Incident 3866   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Upside down channel shape (precast.prestressed)

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/16/2002 7:38:37 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, August 16, 2002 3:38:37 PM

UserGroup 2002, Robert Fulton, Alabama DOT

Upside down channel shape (precast.prestressed)




FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:54:15 AM

ALDOT calls these Precast Channel Units - shear keyed together - 15' to 40' - 4.5" thick slab - 2.5 to 3.5 feet wide


Contact Robert Fulton for more details


FROM:jduray DATE:Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:03:27 PM

Can be post-tensioned or r/c.


Incident 3867   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Chart Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/16/2002 7:39:13 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, August 16, 2002 3:39:13 PM

UserGroup 2002, Contact Kristi Van Ooyen at NDOR for more information

May also be related to 2848 & 3217 & 3547


Incident 3881   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Report Writer Enhancement - add analysis output like code checks & section properties to report

Status Suspended

Submitted By Best, Richard

Date Submitted 9/12/2002 8:36:03 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:rmbest DATE:Thursday, September 12, 2002 4:36:03 PM

One of the most frequent complaints from our users is that it is not easy to verify or document the computations from a VIRTIS analysis for a critical point. The Brass output files are bloated with repetitive and sometimes extraneous information and the specifics for a critical point are dispersed throughout hundreds of pages of output. The Brass output files are too verbose and the report writer doesn’t give enough information about capacity and code checks. We would like to see the report writer improved to give a detailed but concise report including relevant code checks for user specified and/or critical points. Attached, we have put together a sample report that contains the information that we would like to see produced by report writer. This example is for a 3 span plate girder with one user specified point at pier 1.



FROM:rmbest DATE:Thursday, September 12, 2002 4:40:14 PM


Incident 3906   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Bearing Stiffeners for Floorbeams

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 10/17/2002 3:49:46 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/17/2002 11:28:07 AM

The mockups do not currently contain a window for users to enter bearing stiffeners for floorbeams.


Bearing stiffeners for floorbeams could exist for the following conditions:

Floorbeam in a Girder-Floorbeam-Stringer or Girder-Floorbeam structure definition: Intermediate supports of floorbeam could have bearing stiffeners.

Floorbeam in a Floorbeam-Stringer structure definition: Any of the floorbeam supports could have a bearing stiffener. (This type of fb does not have intermediate supports.)



Changes required to add bearing stiffeners to floorbeams:


1. Floorbeam Definition window (GFS & GF structure type): Add a checkbox to indicate intermediate supports exist. Then the BWS tree could be built including the Bearing Stiffeners if intermediate supports exist.


2. Add bearing stiffener window. Window will use different domain objects depending on the type of structure it belongs to (GFS,GF structures will use intermediate supports and FS will use all supports).


3. Add db, dm, de and do for tables to store the bearing stiffeners. (not sure if we can use the bearing stiffeners we have now or if we need new tables since they will be referencing the intermediate supports)


4. Export and help


Incident 3996   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Allow debonding of PS strands in the center of a span

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 11/15/2002 2:44:06 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/15/2002 9:39:12 AM

Submitted on behalf of Ken Teng via email on 10/24/02 5:55 PM:


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Krisha,


I am analyzing the prestressed beam and have a debond question. How to

debond center third top strands (see attachment)?

Thank you,


Regards,

Ken Teng

RQAW Corp.

(317) 255-6060 X 260

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Reply sent 10/25/02 8:30 AM:

Ken,


You cannot model such a debond pattern in Virtis. Virtis (and BRASS) expect the debonded strands to be debonded at the end of the strands, not the center of the strands.


Please let me know if you need additional information.


Regards,

Krisha Kennelly, PE

Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

Coraopolis, PA 15108

(412) 269-7914


FROM:jduray DATE:11/15/02 4:42:44 PM

We are to prepare an estimate for the TF.


Incident 4057   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject BWS Report Tool flexibility

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Darren

Date Submitted 12/5/2002 4:41:26 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dkemna DATE:Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:41:26 AM

Enhancement Request:

I would like to be able to specify a specific member, member alternative, or even superstructure definition to use in the report tool.


Currently, if the user selects "member alternative" , for example, when building the tree, all of the member alternatives will be output along with all of the supersture definitions. I think a user would want to report only the alternative used in the final design if given the option and thus the supersture definition containing the desired member alternative. The original BWS report is better set up for specifying members, but you can not take out information that is not related to your design as can be done with the report tool. If further enhancements to the BWS report tool are already planned, let me know.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/5/02 1:41:05 PM

I agree...good suggestion.


FROM: David Warner DATE: 9/24/2008 10:58:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I've suggested this again as VI# 8885.


Could 4057 and 8885 be moved to enhancement status?


Thanks.


Incident 4171   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Stringer Group Definition Geometry window - Computed Span Length grid

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 1/6/2003 6:51:07 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:1/6/2003 1:49:53 PM

Should be able to select span length cells in Computed Span Length grid so user can see all of the numbers behind the decimal. Keep read only.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:1/8/2003 10:51:10 AM

This grid is behaving like our current grids with ranges. For example, in the Deck Concrete grid, the End Distance is read only and is displayed showing 2 #'s past the decimal place. User could have entered a start distance and length with up to 6 #'s past the decimal place but user doesn't get to see that in the End Distance cell. This could be frustrating when dealing with tolerances and precision. Would be nice to have cells read only but selectable so you could see more significant digits.


We should find a way to allow this in all of our current grids and then this new grid we added for 5.0 will work better.


FROM:jihnat DATE:2/6/2003 3:49:10 PM

Removing the .SetEnabled(FALSE) call for this column will give this behavior.

Be aware, however, that "selectable" means that cell will be a tab stop.

In the GUI, we've always tabbed over the readonly cells. Not sure what the ramifications will be by making this a wholesale change.


FROM:jduray DATE:2/7/03 8:57:23 AM

We need to test all grids that are getting this new behavior. Charge to maintenance.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/10/2003 8:25:14 AM

I removed the .SetEnabled(False) for the column on the Stringer Group Definition Geometry window.


FROM:jduray DATE:2/19/03 9:01:13 AM

This is going to require too much testing to do for this release. Change to Suspended and do for future release when we have time to properly test.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:50:01 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 4238   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Explorer Window Columns

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 1/15/2003 1:19:00 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, January 15, 2003 8:19:00 AM

Gail and I talked about this enhancement request this AM. We would like to be able to select which columns are displayed and be able to re-position the columns in the Bridge Explorer.


FROM:hlee DATE:9/24/2007 2:45:24 PM

Related to Incident 8158.


Incident 4250   

Folder /Support Center

Subject U Beam Interior Diaphragm Load (Box beams also)

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 1/15/2003 4:07:27 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:07:27 AM

The user has given the software everything it needs to know for the diaphragm weight but still has to get the calculator out to get the number. This should be calculated by the software.


FROM:jduray DATE:1/16/03 11:50:17 AM

Krisha - We need to discuss this.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:1/23/2003 4:30:42 PM

Good suggestion for an enhancement. We don't currently compute this value for a box beam either. Are the interior diaphragms always full depth?


Incident 4312   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Need Shear Stud Wizard

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/3/2003 5:21:39 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, February 03, 2003 12:21:39 PM

For Ken Hurst

Shear Stud count is available in the Spec Checker as Number Provided and Number Required. It sure would be nice to have a wizard to first off suggest number of studs and spacing and after an analysis take the info provided by the spec checker to revise the original estimate.


FROM:jduray DATE:2/4/03 12:17:58 PM

Excellent suggestion.


Incident 4315   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Slab thickness used in Distribution Factors

Status Suspended

Submitted By Markel, John

Date Submitted 2/4/2003 9:00:04 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:jmarkel DATE:Tuesday, February 04, 2003 4:00:05 PM

In the Superstructure Typical Section window I input the total deck thickness, and in the Deck Profile window I input the structural deck thickness. When I run my model and view the Load Distribution File, It shows Opis using the total deck thickness to compute the distribution factors. Examples in the "PCI Bridge Design Manual" and "Design of Highway Bridges" use the structural deck thickness to compute the distribution factors. If there is a discrepancy as to what should be used, the designer should have control over what slab thickness is used to calculate the distribution factors.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:06:56 AM

The BRASS-GIRDER(LRFD) engine provides input for the thickness of the deck used for strength and also an input for an additional thickness for dead load. Opis provides two locations for inputting the total and structural deck thicknesses. The total deck thickness is input on the Superstructure Typical Section window. The structural (effective) deck thickness is entered either on a deck profile or cross section window. The structural thickness may vary depending on how the user defined the schedule of thicknesses or cross sections. The export passes the total deck thickness to the BRASS engine.


There appear to be a few solutions:

1) Add another field to Opis for inputting the structural deck thickness in the same location as the total deck thickness.

2) Enhance the BRASS engine properties so the user can input a percent of total thickness to be used for the structural thickness. We have tried to stay away from inputting values with units (in, ft, mm, etc.) in the engine properties.

3) Enhance the export or domain to determine some average structural thickness for the bridge.


Note that BRASS cannot internally utilize the structural deck thickness, which is included in the cross section geometry, because non-composite bridges would not have this information.



FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:30:03 PM

Please look at #2759, I think they are the same


FROM:bgoodrich DATE: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:48 AM

From: Brian L. Goodrich [mailto:Goodrich@BridgeTech-Laramie.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:48 AM

To: Jim Duray (jduray@mbakercorp.com)

Subject: Incidents 4315 and 4328


Jim,


Please review incidents 4315 and 4328 and let me know how to proceed.


Thanks,


Brian L. Goodrich

BridgeTech, Inc.



FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:48:46 PM

Jim - I am assigning this to you to decide what to do.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/23/2004 8:24:08 AM

Run this by the Task Force.


FROM:tthompson DATE:Monday, December 10, 2007 9:43:16 AM

VO Beta TAG meeting 12/10/2007

Also see VI 2759 and 7874

This is closer to an enhancement and we should address this issue so users are not misled.


Incident 4362   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Save Analysis Events – Location

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/14/2003 8:33:30 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, February 14, 2003 3:33:31 PM

When you “Save the Analysis Events” is there any way to save them locally? Or do they always get saved to the database? I wouldn’t mind if a user filled up his own drive with saved data, but we can’t have him filing up the database.


FROM:jduray DATE:2/18/03 10:14:05 AM

They always get saved to the db.


FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:37:47 AM

Would it be feasible to consider this enhancement. Capability to save an analysis to your local drive instead of the database. We just can’t give users the ability to save to the database – the size would become uncontrollable.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/13/2004 11:39:10 AM


Incident 4403   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Stiffener or Frame Connector Plate

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/27/2003 8:31:18 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:31:18 PM

When entering data for a rolled beam we as a rule enter Transverse Intermediate Stiffeners to be used as connector plates. Pairs on the interior girders and singles on exterior girders. On a rolled beam these are NOT intermediate stiffeners but only frame connector plates. The LRFD spec check is going to check them as intermediate stiffeners and fail them on the exterior girder line do to a low moment of inertia value. You can ignore the RED Fails on the Spec Check but it would be much cleaner if they never appeared. A rolled beam is going to fail in moment long before any shear needs to be checked.


If you leave the connector plates off the input data and run an analysis everything will work just fine. But now the structure is missing the size of the plates used for the connections. Somebody down the road will have to dig the plans out to look up this info.


The best solution would have been to call them stiffeners for welded plates and connector plates for rolled beams. And then use the Spec Check accordingly.



FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, February 28, 2003 8:29:02 AM

Don't you think there should be a check to see if Intermediate Stiffeners are needed first, if not needed why check them? Or, if using a rolled beam consider them as connector plates and not stiffeneres.


FROM:jduray DATE:2/28/03 9:17:33 AM

Perhaps there should be a check box on the stiffener ranges window to indicate the comnnection plates should be ignored?



FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, February 28, 2003 1:48:09 PM

See Attached document


Incident 4438   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Madero/Timber issues (include runners and multiple layer decks)

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jones, Daniel

Date Submitted 3/4/2003 4:02:40 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:hlee DATE:3/4/2003 10:59:36 AM

Item 4 in VI 4368:

4. Need to have capability to include runners and multiple layer decks. runners effect deck rating and multiple layer deck effects deck rating and stringer dist. factors. Both will double deck ratings because you consider the load distributed over 2 planks. (will require modifications to virtis as well as Madero)


Incident 4460   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Timber Stability Factor

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 3/13/2003 12:51:39 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/13/2003 8:51:04 AM

(From incident 4457. See that incident for attachments, bbd files, etc.)


The stability factor for beam is not available for input. The value is used in the calculation and it shows up on the factor summary sheet.


Analysis Point: 105


Section Dimensions (in)

Depth 17.500 Width 7.750


Load Dur.

or

Design Stresses (ksi) Unfact. Moist. Size Stab. Shear Percent Fact.

Stress Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Stress

Flexure, ten zone in ten 1.550 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.712

Flexure, comp zone in ten 1.550 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.712

Horizontal Shear 0.085 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 0.098

Comp. Perp. to Grain 0.730 0.67 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 0.489


Stability factor shares the calculation with the flat factor. Both values should be exposed for edit and use in Madaro.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/13/2003 8:59:16 AM


FROM:jduray DATE:3/13/03 2:25:06 PM

Kirsha - Is this with regard to timber decks?


FROM:jduray DATE:3/13/03 2:26:45 PM


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/13/2003 3:39:56 PM

It's just for beams, not decks. We use to have this attribute but removed it. See Incident 2878.

(I'm not sure what Paul means when he says "Stability factor shares the calculation with the flat factor". They seem to be 2 distinct items to me. Beam stability factor from AASHTO 13.6.4.4 and flat use factor from Table 13.5.1A)



FROM:pjensen DATE:Friday, March 14, 2003 10:49:58 AM

in the output of the Madaro, the column for stability and flat are the same with different headings. in the timber girder and the decks the flat attibute is in both screens. We are questioning why is the stabilty factor is not showing up in the grider screen and the flat removed?


FROM:jduray DATE:3/14/03 3:18:48 PM


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/14/2003 3:51:30 PM

As incident 2878 explains, Virtis has never had the Beam Stability Factor. The stability factor should be entered on a per span basis but Madero does not accept the stability factor on a per span basis. So a decision was made in the development of Virtis Version 4.0 to not have that attribute. I guess it's an enhancement if you want to add it to Virtis. Madero will also need enhanced to use this factor properly if Madero still doesn't accept it on a per span basis.


I'm still not sure what you are asking about the flat factor. Are you saying we should remove the flat factor from the Beam Details window?



FROM:pjensen DATE:Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:26:06 PM


Incident 4465   

Folder /Support Center

Subject BWS Tree - nails after deck window

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 3/13/2003 12:58:11 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/13/2003 8:57:12 AM

(From incident 4457. See that incident for attachments, bbd files, etc.)


The nail section with decks is not in a good workflow. The user must go down the tree to put the nail value in before finishing the nail lam deck properties. The program will not run if this value is not set (seems a little odd to me since we are rating not designing).


FROM:jduray DATE:3/13/03 2:52:40 PM

Joe - how long would it take to add an option to the nail dropdown in the deck window to create a new nail (which is lower in the tree)?


FROM:jduray DATE:3/19/03 9:37:42 AM

Joe says a few days - since this is a significant effort we cannot do it at this time. This will be addressed as an enhancement for a future release.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:50:33 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 4468   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Bridge Routing Results and Pontis Rating windows

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ordoobadi, Mehrdad

Date Submitted 3/14/2003 1:32:23 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:mordoobadi DATE:3/14/2003 9:30:21 AM

Bridge Routing Results and Pontis Rating windows do not consider deck rating results in their report.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/20/03 9:46:43 AM

We will have to determine if they should.


Incident 4480   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Incorrect span calculation for deck

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 3/17/2003 10:49:45 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:pjensen DATE:Monday, March 17, 2003 6:49:46 PM

Well we are getting better- the calculation for the non-overhang (and probably the overhang) is not using the correct value for the span. It looks like it is using the actual span distance instead of the value in 3.25.1.2 (clear span + one stringer not to exceed clear span + depth of flooring).


FROM:jduray DATE:3/18/03 2:45:31 PM

Krisha - is there enough info here for you to know what Paul is refering to?


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/18/2003 4:01:31 PM

AASHTO 3.25.1.2 regards the distribution of wheel loads on transverse timber flooring. This problem must be with the span length either the Madero export or Madero uses to compute the bending moment in the deck for rating the deck.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:30:04 AM

Madero follows AASHTO 3.25.1.2 for the main deck span and reports the Effective Deck Span in the output file.


For the overhang, Madero computes the effective span length as:

L(eff) = Overhang - b/2 + b/4 = Overhang - b/4

where b = Stringer Width


The overhang distance is reported in the output file, but not the effective overhang span, which is used to calculate the dead load moments.


The new Madero DLL and OCX files posted on the FTP server correct the tire width problem, which was causing high live load moments.


Please send specific information that illustrates where Madero may be wrong with respect to this incident.



FROM:pjensen DATE:Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:04:54 PM

using the timber/timber definition from 4457, the span is 32", the girder width is 7.75 wide, deck is 2.75 thick. The clear span (span from edge of girder to edge of girder) is 32-7.75=24.25. Now for the span def from the code it is:

24.25+7.75 (2-1/2 girder widths) NOT TO EXCEED 24.25+2.75 (depth of the deck)

32 > 27 so the span width is 27".


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:40:17 PM

Here is what I get when running Madero (see => below):


WHEEL LOAD DISTRIBUTION WIDTH CALCULATIONS (per AASHTO 16th ed. 3.25)


Input Data:

Number of Lanes = 1

Deck Type = Plank Deck

Deck Thickness = 2.750 (in)

Deck Member Width = 10.000 (in)

Stringer Spacing = 2.670 (ft)

Stringer Width = 7.750 (in)


Output data:

=> Effective Deck Span = 2.253 (ft)

Distribution Width Perpendicular to Deck Span = 11.500 (in)

Distribution Widths in Direction of Deck Span:

CUSTOM I Load Group HS Trk 20.000 (in)

CUSTOM II Load Group HS Trk 20.000 (in)


L(eff) = 2.67 – 7.75/12 + 2.75/12 = 2.253 ft = 27.04 in


Do you get these same results?



FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:15:03 PM

E-mail from Paul:

that is what the output says but when the non-factored LL moment is calculated it appears to be using 32".

I get:

32" => 5.5 ft-kips (Madero 5.65)

27" => 4.25 ft-kips

I am using R(a+r/(2w)) for the moment calc.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:15:41 PM

I am getting the following HS20 live load moments from Madero:


Live Load one multiple

lane lanes

HS Trck 4.26 0.00


For the H20 truck, Madero gives 5.68 ft-kips.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:57:15 PM

E-mail from Paul:


that is after the .8 reduction for continuous- I am saying is that the 5.68 value is too high- the 5.68 is based on what values for load,span, wheel width and moment equation?


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:59:14 PM

Madero determines the moment for the H20 truck using the following:


Wheel Load (P) = 16 kips

Effective Span Length (L) = 2.253 ft = 27.04 in

Tire Width (T) = 20 in


The moment calculation considers the wheel load to be distributed over the tire width and applied to the effective span length, which yields the following equation for the reaction and moment:


R = P/2

M = R(L/2 – T/4)


Plugging the terms into the equations yield:


R = 16 / 2 = 8 kips

M = 8 (27.04/2 – 20/4) = 68.16 in-kips = 5.68 ft-kips


Madero does NOT consider the footnote in AASHTO Figure 3.7.6A for the H type trucks. However, Madero does consider the 24-kip axle part of the footnote in MCEB Figure 6.7.2.1, which applies to HS type trucks. Could this be the source of the difference?


Also, note that the 0.8 factor is only applied if you check the “Deck continuous over more than 2 spans” box on the Deck window.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:36:02 PM

E-mail from Paul:


'looking closer to your input file the problem is in the input file- HS 20 truck on timber has a load of 24 kips. The note on the bottom of Figure 3.7.7a says:

"In design of timber floors and orthographic steel decks (excluding transverse beams) for H 20 loading, on axle load of 24,000 pounds or two axle loads 16,000 pounds each, spaced 4 feet apart may be used, whichever produces the greater stress instead of the 32,000-pound axle shown."


We are using that as the controlling value for the axle loads for an HS 20 truck.'


this will cause a problem with our ratings- What is the workaround solution?



FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:23:29 PM

I think we are narrowing down the issue. It appears you would like Madero to consider the “In the design of timber floors…” footnotes associated with AASHTO Figures 3.7.6A and 3.7.7A with respect to the H20 and HS20 trucks, respectively. Madero already uses the 24 kip axle part of the footnote for an HS20 truck instead of the actual 32 kips. However, Madero uses the actual 32 kip axle for an H20 truck. The export could detect the H20 truck and modify the axle weights for the deck rating only. However, what if a user does not wish to exercise the footnotes? Robert Fulton does not want Madero to reduce the HS20 axle weight for the deck rating, so it looks like the user need to have control over which axle weight is used. Am I correct in stating what you want Madero to do?


I cannot come up with any work-around that would affect the deck rating only. If the axle weights are modified to correct the deck ratings, all the girder ratings would then be in error.



FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:24:07 PM

E-mail from Paul (3/19/03):

yep-


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:24:54 PM

We have one user that wants Madero to take the H20/HS20 axle weight reduction for deck rating and another who does not. Therefore, the user must be able to control the H20/HS20 axle weight reduction for deck rating. The most likely solution to this is adding an option to the engine properties. I suggest using the structure definition engine properties and just adding a Deck group box to the engine properties dialog that is displayed. The export would then generate a command that Madero would interpret to determine if the full or reduced axle weight should be used. I will prepare an estimate on what it will take to implement this.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:58:04 PM

The following discussion outlines the technical issues related to implementing control over the footnotes of AASHTO Figures 3.7.6A and 3.7.7A.


1. Modify the Madero engine to consider the footnote for the H20 truck. This would be controlled by a new parameter on the CONTROL command. Madero would have to detect the H20 truck as one of the three special trucks permitted in Madero.


2. Modify the Madero engine properties with a field for specifying if AASHTO Figures 3.7.6A and 3.7.7A are to be exercised when appropriate. This would include modifications to the AboMadero and AbxMadero2 projects.


3. Modify the Madero export to write the new parameter to the CONTROL command.


I estimate 16 hours to implement this capability.


Assumptions: Only the "one axle load 24,000 pounds" portion of the footnote will be considered in this implementation. The "two axle loads of 16,000 pounds each" will NOT be.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:24:51 PM

For the version 5.0 release, the footnotes of Figures 3.7.6A and 3.7.7A will not be considered. The full axle weight will be utilized by Madero in the deck ratings. The work-around is to specify an H or HS type truck with reduced axle weights as defined in the library or the temporary vehicles.


I spoke with Jim and he has decided to make the footnote options an attribute of the deck in Virtis. This will probably not be available in the initial Virtis 5.0 release, but may be available in the first service pack. Due to this decision, my estimate for the engine and export work will be about 4 hours.


Mehrdad - Jim will be discussing this incident with you regarding the attribute. The attribute could be named "Axle Weight Reduction" for deck rating. It pertains to the figures discussed above.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/25/03 3:45:29 PM

Mehrdad - can we get this into the db for future use? If it is a big deal to do now then we should add it for the Sept release after 5.0 is finished.



FROM:pjensen DATE:Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:21:37 PM


Incident 4516   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Library Import and Export - show progress meter in window

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ordoobadi, Mehrdad

Date Submitted 3/26/2003 9:45:40 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:mordoobadi DATE:3/26/2003 5:37:43 PM


Import of the old library shapes take a long time and the user would not know whether the program is stuck or it is processing the import.

It would be nice if we show a progress meter and also process windows messages so that the Virtis/Opis application windows refresh themselves.


Incident 4520   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Show member def assigned to Str Mem Alt and FB Mem Alt in the tree

Status Suspended

Submitted By Barnhill, Gale

Date Submitted 3/27/2003 1:29:43 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:gbarnhill DATE:Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:29:43 AM

In the tree item for Stringer Member Alts and FB Member Alts, we need to show what Member Definition is assigned to the Alt.

This would look similar to the Structure Alt tree where the Superstruct Def is shown assigned to the Struct Alt.


Incident 4530   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Graph header needs to be more descriptive.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 3/31/2003 2:13:27 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:hlee DATE:3/31/2003 10:02:18 AM

Submitted for Ken Wilson:


The attached bmp shows same header for tandem and truck train.


Incident 4678   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject 5.0.0 - RC tee beam gets zero rating for shear at support

Status Investigation

Submitted By Barnhill, Gale

Date Submitted 7/2/2003 4:11:38 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:gbarnhill DATE:Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:11:38 PM

I got this from LA County. They input a 6 span RC tee section. Shear stirrups are defined for each span. The analysis shows zero rating for shear at CP 210.

The ayalysis shows zero shear capacity at 210 and 510, all other CP show N/A for shear ratings.

210 and 510 are the only two locations that show zero for stirrup spacing.


Use Member G1.




FROM:gbarnhill DATE:Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:16:50 PM

This is a dimension/tolerance issue. Because of the stirrup spacing entries in inches, the export must miss the last stirrup space in span 2 and 5. I made an adjustment in the 43.75' start distance in span 2 (changed from 43.749167 to exactly 43.75). The analysis now finds all ranges and gets a critical rating for moment.


The clue here is that the last start distance entry for span 2 looks like 44.00 ft (the span length) while it's actual value is 43.999167. Normal Virtis nomenclature would show that line as distance 0.0 for span 3.


The tolerance for ft is at 0.001 which reports a critical zero rating at cp 210.

If I change the tolerance to 0.01 ft, then the crtitcal zero rating reports at cp 200.


I don't think there is any solution to this other than user experience. By the time I figured this one out, the LA county user had already made the adjustments in start distances and got the results he needed.



FROM:gbarnhill DATE:Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:51:52 AM

The only suggesion I have for this situation is a preference setting to view entries in cells at more that 2 decimals without having to put focus on the individual cell. It may get a users attention to see an entry like 43.999167 instead of 44.00.

Probably a good topic for discussion at the Users Group Meeting.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/3/03 10:30:36 AM

Krisha - let's discuss this.



FROM:gbarnhill DATE:Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:30:25 PM

NEW INFORMATION


In looking deeper into this, I find the following.


With tolerance for ft at 0.001

Export sees a start distance of 43.749167 in span 2 with range of 0.25 gives an end distance of 43.999167 which is within tolerance of 44.000 span length.

Export stops with this as the last stirrup schedule for span 2.

BRASS evidently doesn't like having any gap in the schedule, so BRASS assumes no stirrup spacing for that last 0.000833 and therefore fails the shear rating.


If I set the tolerance to 0.0001 ft, then this bbd runs with a critical rating for moment. Export now creates an additional schedule with space of 0.01, start dist 43.9992 and range 0.0008. BRASS is happy.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/3/03 1:24:48 PM

It seems that the export should control the precision of the values written to the BRASS input file based on the tolerance. I'm not sure how to to this since the tolerance can be user-defined. one possibility is for the number of decimal digits to be one greater than the number of zeros to the right of the decimal between the decimal and the first non-zero digit. For example if the tolerance is .00123 then the number of decimal digits written by the export should be 2+1=3.


What seems to be happening now is the export checks the end of a range with the span length and if within the tolerance (.001) (compares 43.999167 to 44.0000) assumes the range ends at the end of the span. It then writes four decimal digits to the input file and BRASS compares the end of the range (43.9992) to the span length (44.0000) and interpretes as lacking stirrups. If three digits were written then 43.9992 becomes 44.000 (with rounding).


Another approach would be to use the span length as the end of the range since that is what the tolerance is indicating. If the end of the range is within the tolerance of the span length we are assuming the two are the same. Since the span length is the critical number that is what should be passed to BRASS.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:7/14/2003 3:39:15 PM

Attached file "53 01393R.bbd" file is from Vinacs at Caltrans. The structure definition "Span 3" is having the same sort of tolerance problem.


Email received from Vinacs:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

When we analyze the exterior girder, following error message popped up

(Structural Definition: Span 3 Left, Member A, Alternative: Copy of

interior Girder).


"**ERROR** On the BRACING-SCHEDULE command, the Spacingmust be

evenly divisible into the Range Length +/- 0.01 ft."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Email I sent to Vinacs:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I can reproduce this error when the System Defaults/Tolerance for feet is set to 0.1' on my pc (this window can be accessed from the Configuration Browser.)


This tolerance of 0.1' means that the Virtis GUI and the export of data to BRASS will consider points within 0.1' of each other to be the same point.


This member has a diaphragm located at 144.40' and the last diaphragm located at 144.4332'. Since these 2 points are within 0.1' of each other, the export considers there to be only 1 diaphragm at this point and the export considers this point to be at 144.4332'. The export then generates the following command for BRASS:


BRACING-SCHEDULE 1, 21.2400, 16.9600, 127.4732


This means that the diaphragms in this range start at 16.96', are spaced at 21.24' and the range has a length of 127.4732. The problem is BRASS internally verifies that the length of the range can be evenly divided by the spacing and that is not the case here.


If you change your tolerance to 0.01', the diaphragms at 144.40' and 144.4332' will be considered to be different diaphragms and this member will rate.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Based on email received today, Caltrans does not want to change their tolerance values because that may affect other bridges.


Incident 4686   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Allow PS U-beams with vertical legs to have harped strands

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 7/14/2003 3:40:40 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:7/14/2003 11:36:34 AM

Submitted on behalf of David Koenig (MODOT) via email.


Allow PS U-Beams with vertical legs to have harped strands. The Strand Layout window currently has the "Strand Configuration Type" disabled if the beam is a U-beam.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Following is email submitted by MODOT in 2001 when we asked the states what types of ps beams they wanted.


To: jduray@mbakercorp.com

cc: Jeng-fuh Ger/SC/MODOT@MODOT, Paul D Porter/SC/MODOT@MODOT, Michael

D Harms/SC/MODOT@MODOT


Subject: Virtis/Opis Prestressed Shapes


Jim, attached below is a file containing three prestressed shapes that we

would like added as prestressed templates in Virtis.


The first one is basically a solid box girder type structure that is used

commonly on our non-state owned bridges. This is the Quinn Type Member

and it is analyzed basically as a prestressed box girder shape ignoring

the normal reinforcement. They are typically non-composite bridges that

are built as simple spans.


The second one is a prestressed double tee girder. This girder is used

fairly commonly on our non-state structures. It is also found on some of

our state owned structures. These are basically placed side by side to

form a bridge and then are topped with a cast in place slab. When setting

up a model on these in Virtis, allow for the entry of both the right and

left cantilevers on the girders because on an exterior girder, the outer

cantilever will be different than the inner cantilever. These bridges may

be built as composite and non-composite and as continuous or simple spans.


The third one is basically a U-shaped box girder type bridge. These are

placed side by side and are anchored together using bolts. Some type of a

metal form is arched and placed within the notches on the insides of the

webs. A cast in place slab is then poured on top of these girders. These

structures are built as continuous composite bridges. Also, note that the

inside faces of the web are sloped. They are also notched at the top to

allow for the slab form to be placed on the girder.


I believe that I provided you with copies of plans on all of these shapes

at the user's group meeting last summer. If the attached sketches do not

have enough detail, please let me know and I will mail you some actual

plans for these girders.


Thanks,

David Koenig

Bridge Rating and Inventory Engineer

Missouri Department of Transportation


Incident 4689   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Indicate in Rating Results window if the rating analysis did not run to completion for a mbr alt

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 7/16/2003 5:23:51 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:7/16/2003 1:15:02 PM

Submitted on behalf of Anthony Gugino, Caltrans, via email:


Rating Results window does not indicate that a mbr alt of a bridge was not rated because the method of analysis was not applicable for a mbr alt.


Email from Anthony:


It seems preferable that the results tell you in writing that some members

were not rated and why. I am concerned that the X in the box would be

overlooked.


Can a user read the Manual and determine how Virtis handles this situation?


Thanks for your assistance

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Text for all emails for this incident is attached.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:7/16/2003 1:24:21 PM


FROM:jduray DATE:7/17/03 9:06:27 AM

We should investigate the possibility of adding something to the results object to indicate an unsuccessful rating along with an explanation.


Incident 4698   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Provide Ability to Incorporate Attachments

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 7/25/2003 2:52:51 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:jduray DATE:7/25/2003 10:45:02 AM

From A. Gugino 7/14/2003 by letter to Ken.


This is necessary so that we may describe general features, history of the load rating models and details of the structure that are important to the checker or others that might review the Virtis file in the future. These include drawings or text that associate permit movements with elements of the structure and comments that clarify details of the bridge modeling and reasoning for assumptions that were made. It seems reasonable to include the multi-media functionality of Pontis into Virtis.


Incident 4699   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Provide Access to All Load Rating Results

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 7/25/2003 2:53:41 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:7/25/2003 10:55:12 AM

From A. Gugino 7/14/2003 by letter to Ken.


It is very difficult and time consuming to access non-controlling rating results from Virtis that reside in BRASS. Additionally, it is difficult to access member capacity for any rating results. We often utilize non-controlling rating results to determine if a permit load is acceptable. For instance, with steel girders we have found that the bearing stiffener rating sometimes controls. This is useful information for conventional vehicles, but for permit routing may not be as critical to us as flexure, shear and overload (provision) rating results. Additionally, we use flexure and shear design load (the loading that the bridge was designed for) rating results and member capacity results to assist in determining if the bridge is correctly modeled. As noted, this information is often difficult to obtain in that it is buried in reams of output. We sometimes spend more time accessing rating results than we do modeling the bridge. Basically, we want to easy access to all rating results - not just the controlling ones.


Incident 4700   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Provide Shear Skew Adjustment Factors

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 7/25/2003 2:54:41 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:7/25/2003 10:56:07 AM

From A. Gugino 7/14/2003 by letter to Ken.


3-D modeling and field testing show that bridges with significant skews experience much higher shear demand at the exterior and first interior girder adjacent to the obtuse corners. Accordingly, Caltrans design specifications require that the dead load and live load shear demands be increased at these locations. Virtis does not provide for this. This is not a requirement in the AASHTO LFD design or rating specifications but is required in the LRFD design specifications.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/31/2003 10:23:23 AM

Requires changes to BRASS.


Incident 4701   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancements for Permit Routing

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 7/25/2003 2:55:39 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:7/25/2003 10:57:03 AM

From A. Gugino 7/14/2003 by letter to Ken.


There are at least two features lacking in Virtis that are required to make it a versatile permit routing tool for Caltrans. The first is the capability to associate bridge elements with permit movements, so that only the elements that are associated with the movement are evaluated. Most California bridges carry at least two directions of permit traffic. Bridges that have on or off ramps may contain several permit movements. When evaluating bridges for a permit vehicle it would be ideal to rate the portion of the structures that pertain to the permit movement requested. For instance, if the permit truck is traveling in the southbound direction only the girders in the southbound direction should be evaluated. This becomes important in widened structures where different portions of the bridge have significantly different capacities.


Secondly, the girder framing plan and typical section should be enhanced to display the girder names so that a person reviewing the rating results can easily determine where the controlling members are located. This is required to facilitate escorted permit vehicles, which can often be diverted around a "weak" bridge element.


Incident 4703   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Accommodating Structures with Different Girder Types along girder length

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 7/25/2003 2:56:57 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:7/25/2003 10:58:30 AM

From A. Gugino 7/14/2003 by letter to Ken.


Widened bridges often have girder types that are different than those of the original structure. The Girder System method does not accommodate these structures well. Each widened structure (sometimes there are several widenings) that have dissimilar girder types must be defined with a separate structure definition. This leads to a multitude of structure definitions within the bridge and is a very inefficient way to model a bridge. We would like Virtis modified, so that a single structure definition can accommodate different girder types.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:7/31/2003 10:01:16 AM

Based on the attached email from Vinacs, the following enhancements are actually being requested:

1. Allow for discrete changes in the deck thickness across the width of the structure in the Structure Typical Section window.

2. Allow for longitudinal deck joints to be described in the GUI. Allow for the distribution of appurtenance DL to take into consideration the presence of these longitudinal deck joints.

3. Allow each span of the member to have a different type of member alternative. For example, span 1 and span 3 are RC tee beams and span 2 is a P/S I beam. The beams are made continuous for live load by pouring a continuous deck.

4. Allow user to add a girder anywhere within the structure typical section instead of current restriction of added members always placed on right side of structure typical section. (request originally made at Caltrans Dec 2002 training.)


Incident 4729   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Calculations for live load distribution factors and effective flange widths.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 8/14/2003 9:20:37 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:hlee DATE:8/14/2003 5:14:57 PM

Compute buttons should show how the factors and widths are calculated.


Incident 4781   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Copy Diaphragms to All Bays

Status Suspended

Submitted By Shah, Shyam

Date Submitted 9/10/2003 1:18:04 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:snshah DATE:Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:18:04 AM


Would it be possible to have an enhancement which gives the user the option to copy diaphragms to all bays instead of having to copy the input to each bay individually?


Incident 4799   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Add intermediate short floor beam in the end panel of a skewed GFS and GF structure

Status Suspended

Submitted By McCaffrey, Brian

Date Submitted 9/17/2003 4:03:18 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:9/17/2003 12:02:58 PM

Entered on behalf of Brian McCaffrey.

Brian is interested in modifying the floor system to handle an intermediate short floor beam in the end panel of a skewed GFS and GF structure .


Incident 4814   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Show hold-down pt on p/s profile schematic

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 9/26/2003 5:53:14 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description


Incident 4820   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Export warnings filter needed

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 9/26/2003 8:23:28 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:jduray DATE:Friday, September 26, 2003 4:23:28 PM

It would be helpful to bea able to view just the warnings and to filter them. Also useful to disable certain warnings that always appear, have been reviewed to be acceptable.


Incident 4821   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Need tabular report showing stresses

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 9/26/2003 8:25:56 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:jduray DATE:Friday, September 26, 2003 4:25:56 PM

This would be useful for hand computations for the effects of wind since BRASS LRFD does not consider wind.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/25/2005 11:37:20 AM

Email from Brian McCaffrey 8/24/05:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hi Krisha,


I got a dumb question that I didn't want to post in VI until I looked into it. Is there an easy way to get a report that includes stresses for all three stages in Virtis for an LFD rating? I can find stage 1 and

stage 2 in the intermediate output but I can't find anything on live load. The only way I know of is to calculate them manually from the moment and section modulus which can be a pain when you have a lot of transition points and when you're checking both top and bottom flanges. I scoured VI looking for something similar with no luck. I attached part of a Merlin-Dash output that our designers use to check transition points and was wondering if anyone else ever requested something like this.


Thanks, Brian

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Response sent 8/24/05:

Hi Brian,


I can't find any way to get BRASS to output these stresses. I'm copying this email to Brian Goodrich because he knows BRASS better than I do.


I did find incident 4821 in VI regarding needing a tabular report showing the stresses.


Please let me know if you need additional information.


Krisha

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Email response from Brian Goodrich 8/25/05:


There is not currently a stress summary available in BRASS LFD.


Krisha - Should we add this discussion to Incident 4821?


Brian G.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/25/2005 11:41:13 AM

Email sent back out 8/25/05:


I added these emails to that incident. On a side note, the new AASHTO Std Engine (formerly BAR7) does produce a table containing DL and LL stresses in the output file. This engine will be available in the Dec release for steel girders and single span rc beams.


Krisha


Incident 4840   

Folder /Support Center

Subject No option to add hinge for main girder in floor system.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Quintana, Osiris

Date Submitted 10/9/2003 4:46:53 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:hlee DATE:10/9/2003 12:35:05 PM

Submitted via e-mail by Osiris Quintana of Triangle Associates:


==========================================================

In addition to the symmetry request, been able to add a hinge in a span

is necessary on bascule girders. When using the current options for

main girder floor beam system I am not getting that option to come up.

Please explain. Osiris

==========================================================


Symmetry request is entered in VI 4839.


FROM:hlee DATE:1/20/2006 9:45:15 AM

Also in Incident 7050.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/24/2007 1:21:22 PM

Also in Incident 8028.


Incident 4854   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject PS Value System Defaults

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/22/2003 6:40:48 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 22, 2003 2:40:48 PM

In the System Defaults we set the value for the Stress Limit Coef. This value is then used to calculate the Allowable tension in the stress limits for both LFD and LRFD. Our state, like others, uses a different allowable tension stress limit for design and rating. So after using the wizard to create your bridge you will have to edit the allowable tension in the stress limit for either the LRFD or the LFD column along with entering the value for the allowable slab compression.


To solve this problem we would like to have a PS Value System Default for each. One for LFD and one for LRFD.


We currently use Zero tension for LFD and 3*SQRT(f’c) for LRFD


Incident 4899   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Cannot turn on intermediate output for P/S moment capacity calculations

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 11/27/2003 6:45:30 AM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, November 27, 2003 1:45:30 AM

Incident 4836 contained two separate issues, which were submitted by Vinacs via e-mail. The second issue was moved to this incident.


"Program does not show the intermediate steps that is used (such as

f'c, dps, fpu) to arrive the capacity."


The lack of intermediate output for the moment capacity is due to the lack of a control option within the BRASS engine properties in the Virtis user interface. This output can be enabled using the SYSTEM-1 command. This request is for users to be able to turn on intermediate output for prestress moment capacity calculations.


Incident 4900   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Cleanup utility for events

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 12/2/2003 8:56:27 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:jduray DATE:12/2/2003 3:54:29 PM

Paul Jensen called to ask about the BRIDGEWare Admin Utility and how it purges events from abw_event. Montana is using the system quite heavily and generated 100,000 events in the past month. He ran the utility to purge them and it took more than 8 hours to run. He would like to purge on a daily basis.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:12/3/2003 12:48:27 PM

Another alternative:

We can do the event clean-up when a user saves a bridge. We would use event clean-up settings in abw_sys_database table when a bridge is saved to delete the unwanted events.


We need a new column in abw_sys_database table: automatic bridge event clean-up indicator.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:3/11/2004 11:36:29 AM

Jim I am assigning this to you. I was wondering if you would like the above resolution implemented.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:6/8/2004 9:21:49 AM

Options:


(1) Events are cleaned up when a bridge is saved.

(2) Scheduled event clean-up


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:6/8/2004 9:24:25 AM

Estimate for option (1)


Tasks:

1 - Add new column auto_bws_event_cleanup_ind to the abw_sys_database table. 1

2 - Corresponding Db, De, Dm, and Do classes should be updated. 2

3 - Add a check box for BWS automatic event clean-up to the BridgeWare Admin program. 4

4 - Implement event clean-up within the modification event Dm object. 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 15 hours


FROM:hlee DATE:7/19/2006 10:19:44 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 4941   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Improve floor system framing plan schematic.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 1/8/2004 4:04:13 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:hlee DATE:1/8/2004 10:58:29 AM

This incident is submitted as a result of VI 4914.


Improve framing plan schematic to show span lengths and spacings and/or a table to display framing plan layout.


FROM:jduray DATE:1/8/2004 11:40:59 AM

I think we should add to the domain a class that computes member offsets from the structure reference line and span lengths. The Report Tool should be enhanced to use this object.


Incident 4942   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Enhance Stringer Member window with span lengths info.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 1/8/2004 4:09:39 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:hlee DATE:1/8/2004 11:06:32 AM

This incident is submitted as a result of VI 4914.


Display span lengths info in Stringer Member window, just like those in Girder Member window.


Incident 4943   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Validate stringer span lengths info in definition to agree with stringer member alternative.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 1/8/2004 4:18:04 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:hlee DATE:1/8/2004 11:11:58 AM

This incident is submitted as a result of VI 4914.


Virtis should validate stringer span lengths info in Stringer Definition window if the definition has been assigned to a stringer member alternative.


Incident 4979   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Rating Factor Failure not in Results Graph

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/2/2004 3:49:25 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, February 02, 2004 10:49:27 AM

In the attached bbd, after doing a opis analysis (HL-93 design review) – the spec checker calls out 6 rating factor failures for LL deflection. When I go to the results graph, I can not find any “RED” or failures for rating factors. Shouldn’t there be??


FROM:hlee DATE:2/6/2004 5:00:51 PM

Dean, I cannot find the attached bbd.


FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, February 09, 2004 8:36:47 AM

Attached


FROM:hlee DATE:3/11/2005 2:12:35 PM

LL deflection rating factors are not stored in abw_results_... tables. The factors are not in tabular analysis results. They are available in the form of comments in abw_lrfd_spec_check_comment. In order to display the minimum rating factors in Results Graph, we need to make them available to the tabular analysis results first.


Attached Dean's bbd in 5.2 format.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/8/2005 2:58:58 PM

I think the analysis engine should report rating factors based on limit state. The results graph would have to be modified to display rating factors (or design ratios) based on categories such as LL deflection.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/13/2005 9:23:56 AM

It looks like the tabular results do not include Service II.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:35:50 AM

7141, 5008, 4979 & 2737 are all related to LL Deflection problems


Incident 4986   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Show NBI number in the Bridge explorer

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 2/5/2004 7:49:25 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:jduray DATE:2/5/2004 2:50:50 PM

Entered on behalf of Joeseph Wellington of Oklahoma DOT


FROM:jduray DATE:2/5/2004 2:52:59 PM

This would have to include adding to the Report Tool, Find Bridge, etc.


FROM:jduray DATE:2/5/2004 2:55:01 PM

Same as 3908.


Incident 5025   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Move the "Transfer This License" function from the Tools menu onto the login dialog.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ihnat, Joseph

Date Submitted 3/2/2004 2:59:36 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:jihnat DATE:3/2/2004 9:57:26 AM

Move the "Transfer This License" function from the Tools menu onto the login dialog.

This would be useful on those (rare) occasions when the user cannot login to the DB to transfer their license, such as VI 5024.

We would also need to change the Help under "Program Activation Required" and adding an explanation on the Help for the login dialog.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/19/2006 10:07:45 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 5190   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Copy Diaphragms to All Bays

Status Suspended

Submitted By Shah, Shyam

Date Submitted 6/18/2004 6:25:32 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:snshah DATE:Friday, June 18, 2004 2:25:35 PM


A suggestion for a future enhancement would be to create a function in the framing plan window that would allow the user to copy diaphragm configurations to all bays instead of having to copy the diaphragm configurations to each bay individually.


FROM:hlee DATE:6/21/2004 11:58:02 AM

Same as VI 4781


Incident 5273   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Let users see more significant digits in data computed by Virtis/Opis

Status New

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 8/5/2004 4:37:27 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/5/2004 12:39:23 PM

We have a lot of grids and read only edit controls that show items like computed end distances. The computed values are read only but the user can only see the # of significant digits in our display string. They need to see more signifcant digits to be able to find problems with their input. We should make all read only fields in Virtis/Opis be selectable so user can see more significant digits.


Submitted in response to following portion of email from Vinacs:


..........

We tried to match the inflection point to the hinge location in the span. Hinges are at 16.638 (14.36725 %pt) and 99.167 (85.63274 %pt). Instead of entering the data to the 4 decimals, I rounded it to 14.4 and 85.6. If I had entered the data in the Deck Concrete GUI, so that the start or end point within the data matched the location of the hinge, this error could have been prevented. Unfortunately, since the "End Distance" in the Deck Concrete GUI is reported to the second decimal only. It will be difficult to know actual end distance to compare. Is there any way I could view the exact end distance?

..........


FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/7/2004 4:42:11 PM

Email received from Richard Best, Illinois DOT about same topic:


- In "grayed-out", or non-updatable fields under the Reinforcement tab of Girder Profile for RC members, the values can be expanded to see the precise decimal value (out to 6 decimals) and copied (tho, of course, not changed). Why have not all such fields throughout the Virtis data been made to operate like this? It often would be a help when data must be revised, etc. to just copy and paste the exact value. For example: In a steel structure when the bracing is input, the start point of a range is created as exactly the same as the end of the previous range. When range lengths are revised, the following range start points are not automatically corrected and must be changed manually or the ranges must be entirely deleted and re-entered. It would sometimes be helpful to be able to just copy the end point of the previous range and paste it into the start point of the following range.


Incident 5275   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Enhancements to Member Loads window

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 8/9/2004 12:14:43 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/9/2004 8:17:13 AM

Submitted on behalf of Vinacs, Caltrans via emial 8/6/04:


The bridge that you reviewed yesterday brought up this enhancement request. See whether this one has been reported earlier or not. If not, please enter this as an enhancement request.


First I will mention the problem we faced to in order for you to understand the problem and the request.


We had three steel girders that are different in lengths (256 ft,260 ft, 264 ft), however, most of the details are the same except the length. As a result, we decided to enter first girder from scratch and then copy, paste and modify approach for the other two. We modelled the shorter girder first. Once we are satisfied with the rating result, we moved on to the other two. We copied the member alternative (of the shorter girder) and pasted to save time. Later, as I mentioned earlier, we modified the girder, deck, hinge details to match the actual geometry.


All went well, except the Member loads portion.


Member loads on the member that was copied from had a uniform load of 0.262 kip/ft for Load case DL2. Since the span length of the member that was copied from (SL=256) was less than that of the girder that was being copied to(SL=260) , the member loads was pasted as distributed load starting from 0 to 256 feet for the load case DL2. When we modified the data after copied, we checked the uniform load tab and found none. SO WE ASSUMED THAT THE uniform load was not copied (probably many users will do the same) and entered the uniform load and DID NOT CHECK THE distributed load (since it is not our practice to place any load in the distributed load and it consumes a lot of time as well -see next para on this subject). This resulted in very low rating factor for the member.


The irony is that there is no easy way to check the member load data. Note that we may have four or five load group (DL1, DL2, DW, SIP and etc) and there are four tabs (Uniform, Distributed, Concentrated, Settlement). That means a user has to open 4x4 = 16 UI to check the data once he copied. It is very painful. (Review report is too long since it provide comprehensive report).


I wish that a right mouse click on the UI gives the option to show a table gives all the data entered within the UI only. When I talked to others in our group, they mentioned they noticed that Virtis sometimes put loads in the distributed load WHEN copy and paste, but didn't know how and when it does (it illustrates the point there are others have problem with this copy paste method).


WHAT I PROPOSE IS THIS:

1. When the program copy and paste a member alternative, if the loads is entered as uniform load, it should go as uniform load (meaning it goes from full length of each span and remain as uniform load even if the user changes the span length in Member UI).

2. Also, provide an option a user could click on any UI that gives an option to show a table that gives data entered in the Members Loads or add the Load Case Name as the table within the UI as shown below.


Uniform Load UI will look the following:


This arrangement will give the overall data entry when a user checks the data.


DISTRIBUTED LOAD UI WILL LOOK THE FOLLOWING:



This arrangement will give the overall data entry when a user checks the data. If a user copy and paste, if the load moves from uniform load to distribute load UI, one click will

be enough to locate the shift. Same thing applies to the Concentrated Load Tab


The Settlement Tab may need to change, where the user have to have option to add the support number. (now user cannot pick the support)


Vinacs M Vinayagamoorthy

916-227-8657


FROM:jduray DATE:12/12/2007 3:46:10 PM

TAG has decided to change this incident to the abillity to copy member loads from one member to another. Make adjustments that make sense if span length differ.


Incident 5299   

Folder /Support Center

Subject bar mark definitions & development length - allow fully developed at one end only

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jones, Daniel

Date Submitted 8/19/2004 9:31:13 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:rfulton DATE:Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:31:13 PM

The type 1 definition has the option of putting a hook at the end of a bar but this is not used as a point of developement. This is the best place to tell the software to consider the bar fully developed and it allows for someone to develope only one end of a bar. This same option could be applied to Type 2 and 3 definitions as well. The straight bar definition is redundant as it is covered in the type 1 definition. In a large structure definition, the POI location for developement length is very dificult to know which bars you intend to be developed as it requires the user to jump to the girder profile window.


A second option would be to allow the user in the girder profile window to fix the developement of the left and/or the right ends verses fixing both as it is now.


Option three: have the ability to input straight bars without defining them in the bar mark definitions. Just put bar size, number of bars, weather or not to consider developed or not developed at either the left and right ends, distance from top or bottom of the girder, starting location and length. Although I am not a programer, I believe having Option 3 should allow for an easier conversion of the database.



FROM:rfulton DATE:Friday, August 20, 2004 11:51:31 AM

Scratch my programer comment.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/28/2006 8:03:06 AM

Also requested in incident 7470


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:50:51 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 5391   

Folder /Support Center

Subject RC Slab Compute Button for LFD & LRFD Distribution Factors

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/6/2004 4:59:06 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:59:06 PM

Why isn’t a compute button for distribution factors provided for RC (both LFD and LRFD)?


FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/8/2004 10:22:21 AM

We do have LFD compute buttons for girder system rc members. We don't have any compute buttons for girder line members because we don't have enough info to compute the dist factors. Compute buttons aren't provided for LRFD because the BRASS engine will compute them for you.



FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, October 11, 2004 7:56:16 AM

I don't beleive that BRASS computes LRFD dist factors for RC?? BRASS only computes girder system dist factors.


It is cumbersome to have to have a spreadsheet handy to find LFR and LRFD dist factors. If we don’t or can’t provide a compute button then we could provide a small wizard that required the following input, for LRFD (section width, span lengths, deck width & number of loaded lanes) and LFD only requires (span length and section width).


I think this was requested in an earlier incident but I can’t seem to find it right now.


In a nut shell – to do a RC slab type structure we need a spread sheet for Dist. Factors & slab surface to centroid of rebars. I would just like to help the user and give them tools they need without having to rely on tools/program outside of VirtisOpis.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:51:08 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:55:38 AM

This hsould go away with RC Slab systems


Incident 5392   

Folder /Support Center

Subject RC Symmetry Needed

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/6/2004 6:00:07 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 06, 2004 2:00:08 PM

A symmetry check box is needed in RC when entering both Girder Profile/Web and Girder Profile/Reinforcement. The web isn’t too bad but the reinforcement is tedious. 100% of the RC slab plans we produce only show the left half of the structure. Entering both half’s in a repetitive time consuming task which opens the door for input errors. BRASS utilizes symmetry in the BRASS Girder Span-Copy command.


So, help us save some time here and reduce input errors.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 06, 2004 2:28:59 PM

If you had a particular bar with a hook at one end and not the other or any other variance between the two ends, you have to have 2 Bar Marks to correctly enter the bar, The plans call out the bar with one bar mark but in Virtis we will have two bar marks - so now the bar list on the plans vary from what’s in Virtis. A symmetry option would eliminate this.



FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, October 08, 2004 11:28:06 AM


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:51:22 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:56:44 AM


Incident 5393   

Folder /Support Center

Subject RC Girder Profile – Reinforcement – Distance to steel

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/6/2004 7:20:40 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:20:48 PM

All designers know the clear distance to there rebar like 2.5” top and 1” bottom clear. Measuring the distance to the bar centroid requires the designer to have a spreadsheet or calculator handy. This is convenient for programming but not for the designers, it’s time consuming. Lets let the computer do what it does best. Crunch numbers.


This also bites us in the butt when reviewing data input. The reviewer will see some decimal inch value like:

A #10 bar has a clearance diameter of 1 7/16”(1.4375”) so for a 2.5: cl we would have 1.4375 Divided by 2 + 2.5 = 2.7188”, that would be the distance we would enter. Now when you see 2.5” you know you have 2 ½” clear to the bar. When you see 2.7188” you wonder what the heck is that, and with several iterations (guesses) you calculate that to 2.5”.


We already use a clearance value in the side cover on the same GUI. This I believe is measured to the bar face and not it’s centroid, correct.


Lets make this easier for the designers and load raters!!


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:36:41 PM

With entering distance to centroid of the bar, during the iterative design process, you may change a bar size. If clearance to the bar was entered you would not have to do anything else. But with distance to the centroid you have to remember to go from the Bar Mark Definitions GUI to the Girder Profile Reinforcement GUI and change the distance value due to the bar diameter change.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:50:06 PM

Now, see how easily it can happen – I screwed up my example calculations above, I’m only human. It’s not 2.7188”, it should have been 3.2188”. I bet the computer would do it right every time!


FROM:jduray DATE:10/8/2004 8:36:58 AM

It is too late to implement this for 5.2. There are other places in the UI and data in the db that would have to be changed if it is decided to implement this.


FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, October 08, 2004 9:53:52 AM

Too late!! When I first reviewed the GUI mockups I returened the same comments - my copy is dated June 9, '04.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:53:13 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:58:04 AM

This should go away with RC Slab Systems


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:58:48 AM

But will still be an issue for thin slabs on girders


Incident 5399   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Allow user override for schedule based reinforcement dev lengths

Status Suspended

Submitted By Best, Richard

Date Submitted 10/7/2004 8:38:11 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/7/2004 4:35:36 PM

Submitted on behalf of Illinois via email from Richard Best:


- User override for development length should be included since use of current AASHTO specs. will result in extremely low ratings for concrete structures built prior to approximately the mid-70's (and not justified by experience with these structures). It should be made so that the user can specify development and lap lengths based on a bar diameter multiplier as in AASHO specs. prior to the mid 1970's.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:53:55 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 5400   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Allow Bar Mark Definitions to have more than 1 hump

Status Suspended

Submitted By Best, Richard

Date Submitted 10/7/2004 8:39:57 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/7/2004 4:37:58 PM

Submitted on behalf of Illinois via email from Richard Best:


- Bent bars used in slabs and Tee-beams should be allowed to have more that one "hump" as in, for example, a slab continuous over more than one interior support.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:54:10 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/12/2007 4:12:45 PM

TAG discussed changing this request to describe a bent bar that may have multiple "humps" by defining a table of x-y values for the end of each segment of the bar.


Incident 5410   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Input sched reinf from centerline of beam not from edge

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 10/13/2004 11:16:57 AM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:jihnat DATE:10/13/2004 7:15:03 AM

when putting in the bar data it would be nice to have an option to input the bar location about the center line of beam not from the edge.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:54:35 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 5492   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Printing Controls Needed - fit to one or more pages wide and tall

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 11/10/2004 1:21:13 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:21:14 AM

When selecting File: Print we have the option of selecting Portrait or Landscape. Other windows programs like Excel would allow you to condense the output and “Fit” it to one or more pages wide or one page tall. See attached jpg from Excel. This would be a very handy feature especially when printing a Rating summary report.


Incident 5742   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Enhancement for shaft isn't centered or symmetrical on the footing

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lang, Guy

Date Submitted 12/30/2004 3:15:53 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:glang DATE:Thursday, December 30, 2004 10:15:54 AM

When entering Bridge Alternates,Foundation Alternates,Pier Footing Geometry the geometry assumes the pier column (shaft) is centered on the footing.This may not be the case.There are cases (Fort Pitt Blvd.)where the shaft isn't centered or symmetrical on the footing. It would be advantageous to be able to input both the transverse and longitudinal dimensions from centerline of shaft to edge of footing in both directions.


Incident 5797   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Tabular Reports

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 1/13/2005 6:01:55 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:jduray DATE:1/13/2005 12:59:54 PM

Change the default such that no load cases and load combinations are selected.


FROM:jduray DATE:1/13/2005 1:03:14 PM

Because there are possibly thousands of load cases and combinations I think we need to add some navigation features to the selection of load and combinations:


Add Next and Prev buttons to navigate to the next or previous selected item.

Add counters in the view to display the number of limit states, load cases and combinations selected. Include the envelop yes or no.


We also should have progress bar but that is too much effort and not in scope.

Also need an abort button (again out of scope)


FROM:jduray DATE:1/13/2005 1:31:36 PM

Need to change the pointer to the hour glass while the report is processing.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 6/4/2009 10:04:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time

TAG discussed that this enh could be limited to the summary of selected items.


Incident 5809   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Provide option to get skew from struct def

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lang, Guy

Date Submitted 1/14/2005 3:14:18 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:glang DATE:Friday, January 14, 2005 10:14:18 AM

Under the Pier Data (Pier Skew), can this be linked to the skew data provided in the Structure Framing Plan Details Layout so the skew doesn't need to be added again? It can easily be missed by the user.


Incident 5830   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject wind data: (calculations)

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lang, Guy

Date Submitted 1/21/2005 4:09:29 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:glang DATE:Friday, January 21, 2005 11:09:29 AM

It would be helpful to have the conditions (open country,suburban or city)as selected by the user and as per AASHTO Table 3.8.1.1-1 printed out in the calculations for the WS-Sub and WS-Super. This would appear in the input section of the calculations after Wind Data.


Incident 5864   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Creep Loads can not be entered

Status Suspended

Submitted By Klophaus, Jason

Date Submitted 1/25/2005 4:49:03 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:jklophaus DATE:1/25/2005 11:49:20 AM


There is no way to enter creep loads. No creep tab as shown in the mock-ups and no CR in pull down menu under cap additional loads tab.


Incident 5904   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Vary web thickness in schedule based rc

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 2/1/2005 12:39:31 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/1/2005 7:38:45 AM

Submitted on behalf of Vinacs, Caltrans via email:


Our guys have done 3 span continuous tee-beam bridge rating and find the following items:


1. User cannot vary the thickness of web, if he chooses the scheduled based input. I am very much disappointed, we have several bridges with flared web.


2. In the section description, web depth is requested; Actually, here user is supposed to enter overall depth of the section--Somewhat confusing.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/1/2005 7:42:45 AM


FROM:jduray DATE:12/12/2007 4:27:46 PM

Robert Fulton says the Help needs to be changed for the schedule based rc web tab. Depth of web should be changed to depth of girder for both beginning and end.


Incident 5905   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Schedule based rc - compute tributary width

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 2/1/2005 12:41:04 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/1/2005 7:39:59 AM

Submitted on behalf of Vinacs via email:


Our guys have done 3 span continuous tee-beam bridge rating and find the following items:


3. Tributary width, in the case of scheduled based input, should match the tributary width of section and therefore, I believe Virtis should estimate it automatically so the error will be minimized


Incident 5935   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Improve Wizard to Apply Different Stiffeners at Bearing Diaphragms

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/2/2005 3:04:56 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, February 02, 2005 10:04:56 AM

In the Trans. Stiffeners Ranges GUI we have a wizard to apply stiffeners at Diaphragms. When selected we have the options to apply “End Diaphragms and Diaphragms at Piers” and “Interior Diaphragms”.


The interior diaphragms pulldown one is okay but in the Bearing stiffeners pulldown needs to be added to. We can only select one Bearing stiffener, this bearing stiffener will be added at both the abutments and the piers. It has been my experience that abutment and pier diaphragms are never the same. So the user has to select one or the other then go in and edit the Bearing Stiffeners Location window to get the correct one at abutments or piers for each unlinked member.


We should have 2 pulldowns, one for the abutment and one for the pier.


Incident 5941   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Graphical representation of pier/superstruct relationship

Status Suspended

Submitted By Freeby, Gregg

Date Submitted 2/2/2005 3:19:17 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:gfreeby DATE:Wednesday, February 02, 2005 10:19:18 AM

I know we cut this but it would be really useful to have a graphical display or some sort of visual display that shows you the relationship of the pier alternatives to the structure alternatives. Right now it takes careful study of the data to be sure you've assigned the correct superstructure to the pier.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/20/2006 11:15:29 AM

Changed Project to Support Center/Opis Sub.


Incident 6037   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Minimize time of superstructure analysis when launched from pier analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 2/10/2005 1:58:54 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/10/2005 8:54:48 AM

It would be nice to minimize the time for the superstructure analysis when it is launched from a pier analysis by setting the engine properties to not generate pois and turn off output.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/20/2006 11:38:17 AM

Changed Project to Support Center/Opis Sub.


Incident 6048   

Folder /Support Center

Subject XML Missing Right Overhang

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/15/2005 12:25:51 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:25:52 AM

From Eric Anderson:

I've been working on extracting information out of the XML output. When I couldn't find the right overhang I went back to the Virtis/Opis report I was creating thinking I missed it but it looks like I never had the option of outputting the right overhang. Left overhang is there and left/right widths are there.


See attachment


FROM:hlee DATE:2/15/2005 9:12:35 AM

Right overhang start and end are calculated values, which cannot be entered by user. Report Tool can be enhanced to output these calculated values.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/19/2006 4:45:44 PM

I don't know if this is a bug or enhancement. The database does not store the right overhang width so that is probably why the report tool does not report it. It can be handled as a special case in the report tool so that is why I think it is an enhancement.


Incident 6053   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Report Tool Returning ID Number and not the Name

Status On Hold

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/16/2005 12:33:38 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:33:38 AM

Using Report Toll I have selected “County” as one of the bridge attributes. When the report is generated all that is generated is the County ID value and not the County Name associated with that ID number.

See the attached jpg

The Bridge Description (Cont) tab shows County as “89 Shawnee”

The parameters show ID #89 associated with “89 Shawnee”

The Report Tool Window shows the request to generate the county name

The generated report shows County :89 but no name???


I believe the County Name should be reported and not the database ID number.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/7/2005 11:09:13 AM

I agree.


FROM:hlee DATE:3/7/2005 11:18:08 AM

Should Bridge Explorer also display the name of the corresponding parameter id?


FROM:hlee DATE:7/19/2006 10:13:50 AM

Changed Category to Enhancement.



FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:20:52 PM


Incident 6131   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject User shouldn't have to specify PS I Beam shape for Virtis to compute distribution factors

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 3/10/2005 1:06:04 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/10/2005 8:00:06 AM

This came up at the Virginia training course in January. Member alt is specified as PS I Beam. Go to Live Load Distribution Factor window, hit Compute from Typ Section button. Get message that beam shape has to be specified on Beam Details window. There is no need to specify the I Beam shape before distribution factors are computed. It is necessary to specify beam shape for boxes and tees but I don't think it is necessary for I beams.


Incident 6237   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Mild steel and prestressed strand in a P/S Bulb Tee

Status Suspended

Submitted By Horton, Doug

Date Submitted 3/29/2005 11:59:19 AM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:dhorton DATE:Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:59:19 AM

VDOT often uses a combination of mild steel and prestressed strands in bulb tees. In working with OPIS, our designers did not see a way to incorporate both into the design. Can OPIS handle both or do we have to "fake it out" in some manner using all prestressed strands?


P.S. If this is not the forum for this question, please let us know.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:4/1/2005 7:53:04 AM

Opis does not support mild steel in prestress beams. This was previously submitted in incident 2363 but the user group hasn't voted to have it implemented.


Incident 6240   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Start - Programs - AASHTOWARE

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 3/29/2005 4:29:15 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:tthompson DATE:Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:29:15 PM

Enhancement Request


I would like to request a change in the way the shortcuts are located in Start, programs, AASHTOWARE, Virtis-Opis.


Currently the Virtis, Opis and VirtisOpis shortcuts are at the level under AASHTOWARE. I believe they would be better placed under Virtis-Opis.


The Pontis start is located under Start, Programs, AASHTOWARE, Pontis.


I think the only things that should be under AASHTOWARE and bridgeware integrated type items. Not the individual applications.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/31/2005 10:12:15 AM

We can make the change as you suggest. It seems there isn't a standard. We are consistent with the Microsoft placement of tools and executables.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:04:10 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/GUI/Installation to Support Center.


Incident 6269   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Add eccentricity to LLReactionDetails

Status Suspended

Submitted By Li, Xinmei

Date Submitted 4/4/2005 8:07:11 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:xli DATE:4/4/2005 3:59:17 PM

It would be nice to have girder reactions eccentricity in Live load reactions output file.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/20/2006 11:41:30 AM

Changed Project to Support Center/Opis Sub.


Incident 6295   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Improve handling of changes to ranges

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 4/12/2005 7:36:10 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:jduray DATE:4/12/2005 3:20:07 PM

This involves improving stirrups, shear connectors, diaphragms, stiffeners (and perhaps others) to better handle and adjust ranges if a change is made to a range.


Incident 6308   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Revise the Configuration Browser

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 4/14/2005 6:11:04 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:jduray DATE:4/14/2005 2:05:32 PM

Revise the browser to a splitter window with the right side a function of the selected item on the left. For Users it should list the users (and data) like the bridge explorer. For privileges, parameters and system defaults the rhs should be liek the current windows for privileges.


Incident 6327   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Critical Design Point Missed in POI Wizard

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 4/19/2005 7:51:24 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:51:24 PM

The POI wizard generates the following points based on 5.11.1.2.1 which determines where the bar is no longer required to resist flexure, max of (effective depth of member, 15db, 1/20 clear span) from start or end of the bar.


The wizard is missing, 5.11.1.2.3. Which states that 1/3 of the total tension reinforcement provided for negative moment at a support shall have an embedment length beyond the point of inflection not less than effective depth of member, 12db, 1/16 clear span.


What that is saying is that 1/3 of your top area of steel required that extends over a pier into a span has to extend beyond the DL + LL inflection point by maximum of (effective depth of member, 12db, 1/16 clear span).


The point I explained above is a very important point for design – it tells you where you can terminate your top steel. This is the same criteria for LFD and LRFD.



FROM:jduray DATE:Tuesday, November 15, 2005 1:25:55 PM

This is not a bug.

Change to an enhancement...investigate handling this type of issue in the export after the analysis is complete. The export could append to the spec-check calcs.


FROM:jduray DATE:Tuesday, November 15, 2005 1:41:42 PM


FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:04:12 PM

how could this not be a bug - the wizard completly misses a point that is required by code for design?


FROM:jduray DATE:11/21/2005 11:57:27 AM

An analysis is required to determine the location of the inflection point...it was not in our scope for the wizard to compute this location. The engine (BRASS) cannot compute it because it does not know about a bar schedule or embedment lengths. The export is the only place this can be computed so we (with TF approval) changed this incident to an enhancement. We would do supplemental spec-checking after the analysis (outside the analysis engine) and append the results to the engine spec-check results.


Incident 6365   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Column Geometry/Wall Shaft Geometry window for varying sections

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 4/29/2005 2:46:49 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:4/29/2005 10:43:09 AM

Column geometry varies linearly over its height.

Would be nice to have a listbox or something where you could specify if you want to see the cross section for the top or bottom of the column segment. Right now you have to know that you have to right click to get a list where you can pick top or bottom cross section. (I think a lot of users will have trouble with this.)


FROM:hlee DATE:7/20/2006 11:45:33 AM

Changed Project to Support Center/Opis Sub.


Incident 6376   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Copy and paste column and row headers with the results graph data.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 5/3/2005 2:29:18 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:hlee DATE:5/3/2005 10:14:16 AM

From Colorado Virtis training.


Currently, the headers can be copied and pasted to other apllication, but only one at a time.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/19/2006 10:30:23 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 6384   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Need default file name during bridge export

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ihnat, Joseph

Date Submitted 5/4/2005 1:38:20 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:jihnat DATE:5/4/2005 9:34:31 AM

When doing a Bridge Export, it would be nice to use the bridge name as the default filename. Right now there is nothing.


FROM:jihnat DATE:5/13/2005 3:49:51 PM

Or maybe Bridge ID.


Incident 6510   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add ability to rate with and without wearing surface in one analysis run

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 6/15/2005 4:20:23 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description


Incident 6535   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Girder-floorbeam system problems

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 6/24/2005 6:46:09 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Friday, June 24, 2005 2:46:09 PM


Submitted on behalf of my consultant. The text runs as follows, graphics are included in the attached Word file. Also attached the supporting bbd file.


1. In the file 0600035-TES, for Superstructure Definition, “Spans 7-10 (WB)”, when an attempt to assign Stringer Group Definition, “StrGrp Sp10” to Unit 5 of the Floor System Geometry, a Validation Error, “The stringer group definition Stringer Unit 5 is not located on the structure.”, occurs (as follows).




2. In Superstructure Definition, “Spans 11-14” it is desired to utilize “User-defined dead load” for Stage 2 DL distribution to the exclusion of “Uniformly to all girders” as computed based on the Structure Typical Section. However when attempted the system calculated Stage 2 dead load is being used anyway.

3. When a Concentrated Load Moment is applied to a girder, there is no affect on the analysis. For an example, try Superstructure Definition, “Spans 11-14” where a 500 ft-k moment has been specified.

4. In Superstructure Definition, “Spans 11-14” when attempting to run the analysis of the floorbeam, “Flbm2” the following error occurs…

Error generating LFD/ASD load commands!

Error generating load group commands!

Error in the loads utility!

Error getting stringer dead load reaction!

Error preparing stringer dead load reactions!


The stringer dead load reactions have been computed and are displayed as accepted both under the “Computed Stringer Reactions” and “Floorbeam-Stringer Reactions. This seems similar to incident 6045, which had to do w/floorbeam dead load reactions on the main girders.

5) Whole Bridge or Superstructure Definition Copy problems (test by copying “Spans 11-14”): When copying and pasting a whole bridge file or just the Superstructure Definition of a Floor-System Superstructure, the following errors occur…

a) For the Stringer Definitions, there are no supports. Under Supports is the message, “Zero spans were defined for this member”. To correct this problem, one must first open the main Stringer Definition window and then select .

b) Under the stringer definitions, “Bearing Stiffener Locations” becomes inaccessible.

c) When attempting to analyze a stringer, the following error occurred, “Unknown error initiating member analysis!”. Note: Prior to the copy, in the source, the stringer analyzed w/no problem.

d) The Bridge file could not be saved after creating a copy of a Superstructure Definition within it.

6) In a girder-floorbeam system Virtis by default incorrectly distributes parapet and other Stage 2 dead loads, located on or outside of the main girders, to stringers and floorbeams that are between the girders. These loads should be considered as supported only by main girders, outside stringers and cantilevered portions of floorbeams only. This is due to the much greater stiffness of the main girders relative to the stringers.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/29/2005 8:00:42 AM

This incident is being split into several incidents (6541-6545) since there are too many diverse items to address in one incident.


Submitted on behalf of my consultant. The text runs as follows, graphics are included in the attached Word file. Also attached the supporting bbd file.


1. In the file 0600035-TES, for Superstructure Definition, “Spans 7-10 (WB)”, when an attempt to assign Stringer Group Definition, “StrGrp Sp10” to Unit 5 of the Floor System Geometry, a Validation Error, “The stringer group definition Stringer Unit 5 is not located on the structure.”, occurs (as follows)



FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/29/2005 8:47:58 AM

This window is adding up the lengths of all of the stringer group definitions and checking that total length against the structure def length. The error message indicates the last stringer unit is off the structure because StrGrp Sp7 is defined incorrectly. I think StrGrp Sp7 is longer than it really should be.


Based on the span lengths input on the structure def window, span 2 where StrGrp Sp7 is assigned is 143.08' long. StrGrp Sp7 is defined as 165.08' long on the Stringer Group Definition Geometry window. I think it is spanning over 1 too many floorbeams. If StrGrp Sp7 is changed to span over 1less floorbeam (with spacing = 22') the assignment works ok in the Floor System Geometry window.



FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:33:39 AM


We fixed the extra 22' stringer bay. However, when we attempted to assign StrGrp Sp 8/9 to Unit 4 (span 9), we got a message saying "...unit 4 has...a floorbeam at...347.0832 but a corresponding floorbeam member...does not exist at this location." Where it does exist is at 347.0833, i.e. Virtis expects precision to be 0.0001'. We're getting around it by creating seperate stringer group definitons for sp 8 and sp 9, but why do we need such precision? Where are the tolerance settings for this? See Girder-FlbmSystProb2.bbd


FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/30/2005 11:32:03 AM

Virtis is using hardcoded tolerances when it validates the geometry. You will need to use your workaround for this case but we can evaluate relaxing the geometry tolerances for floor systems for a future release.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/30/2005 12:44:12 PM

I don't think it's a bug that we use a stringent tolerance to guarantee user input all "fits" together but maybe we should relax the tolerance a bit for floor systems since other people run into this problem as well.


Incident 6545   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Distribution of appurtenance loads in a floor system

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 6/29/2005 12:14:39 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/29/2005 8:14:28 AM

Originally submitted in 6535. See that incident for bbd file.


6) In a girder-floorbeam system Virtis by default incorrectly distributes parapet and other Stage 2 dead loads, located on or outside of the main girders, to stringers and floorbeams that are between the girders. These loads should be considered as supported only by main girders, outside stringers and cantilevered portions of floorbeams only. This is due to the much greater stiffness of the main girders relative to the stringers.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/30/2005 8:55:21 AM

The option to distribute stage 2 DL states that it will be distributed equally to all girders so the system is working as designed so this is not a bug. It is an enhancement request to add a distribution option based on stiffness of the members. (I think that will be hard for Virtis to determine, user requested outside stringers get load but inside stringers don't. They are probably the same stiffnesses.)


Incident 6548   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Global preferences

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 6/29/2005 6:45:52 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:45:52 PM


I'd like to see global preferences set up for a couple of situations


1) Currently the user can select "skip operating rating based on serviceability" form the POI properties window. I think most raters will want to use this option globally because they may not assign points of interest to a particular member and they may not know which point controls the rating, let alonw which member. This check box should apply to entire bridges, not POI.


2) I greatly appreciate the option (in 5.3.1) to not limit Mcr/Mmax to 1 for prestressed bridges. Again, I would like to see that this option apply to the entire bridge as a global preference instead of one member (and not making it so difficault to find as it is located in the engine tab/properties button for one member alternative). Also, I would prefer that the user have the option to set the default instead of making us have to select this option each time. As it stands right now, we'll have to go into each of our prestressed bridges (future or currently in the database), and select this option for each member.


FROM:jduray DATE:6/30/2005 8:23:47 AM

The UI TAG should review this and determine how we should address these two items and perhaps identify others that should have global values. I think we should consider adding an engine-data tab to the system defaults where the user can specify the engine-data default values. These values would be the default values for the new member alt, poi and analysis event engine data.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 8:55:36 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 6570   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject BRASS Import

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 7/21/2005 5:46:50 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:46:50 PM

REPORTED BY:Dean Teal


DESCRIPTION:I can use BRASS Import to import RC Parabolic Haunched slab bridges. I can rate a Post Tensioned Haunched slab bridge in BRASS Girder LFD (attached data set) So why can’t import a Post Tensioned Haunched slab data set into Virtis. The error message I get from BRASS import tells me I can’t import a PS section that is not uniform in thickness. It should be the same BRASS engine I am rating with as used in Virtis – right??


COMMENTS:


FROM:jduray DATE:7/25/2005 9:28:48 AM

Because Virtis does not support post-tensioned members. Not all BRASS capabilities have been implemented within Virtis.


FROM:dteal DATE:Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:00:52 AM

Is this BRASS capability going to be added in the future?


FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, August 22, 2005 7:58:38 AM


Incident 6605   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Possible Enhancement - Mandatory Input Color Coding

Status Suspended

Submitted By Horton, Doug

Date Submitted 8/15/2005 7:41:23 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:dhorton DATE:Monday, August 15, 2005 3:41:23 PM

REPORTED BY: A. Zickler


DESCRIPTION: User suggested that all mandatory items be color coded or marked in some manner in order to help new and existing users make sure they input all necessary data.


COMMENTS: This should reduce the number of errors and trials that users, especially novice, run into when trying to get structures input. It would also be very beneficial for imported files where all of the necessary data may not be in the import file (such as stiffeners for steel girders). we are using 5.2, but this applies to all versions.


This proposed enhancement is directly related to the Override data color code enhancement.


FROM:dhorton DATE:Monday, August 15, 2005 3:43:15 PM


FROM:jduray DATE:8/16/2005 9:22:04 AM

We started to do this (the blue italic is our attempt at do this) and realized each analysis engine and each specification has different requirements for data. We have attempted to address this issue by providing the engine-related help for each help topic. That way the engine developer can provide a help file that informs the user of the data required.


A more sophisticated solution would be to enhance the "blue itlalic" approach and drive the display with an engine-related resource file that controls the appearance of certain key static text labels.


Incident 6608   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Proposed Addition - Options for Analyze button - Super and Sub

Status Suspended

Submitted By Horton, Doug

Date Submitted 8/15/2005 8:07:21 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dhorton DATE:Monday, August 15, 2005 4:07:21 PM

REPORTED BY: A. Zickler


DESCRIPTION: For the future, when super and sub will coexist, provide dropdown or option in some manner to allow only superstructure or only substructure analysis. When both exist in the tree, the analysis runs through them both as it appears now.


COMMENTS: This will definitely be needed and may already be in the plan for the final substructure. there will also have to be some sort of "option" to work with just the footing, column or cap.


FROM:dhorton DATE:Monday, August 15, 2005 4:07:31 PM


FROM:jduray DATE:12/13/2007 9:33:26 AM

Super and sub have independent Analyze buttons. Change this incident request to the need to be able to do spec-checks of individual pier components (cap, column 1, column2, etc).


Incident 6622   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virginia DOT training: control display digits for real numbers

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 8/18/2005 7:30:34 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:30:34 PM

From Virginia DOT training: Add option in Preferences to turn on/off display digits for real numbers.


Incident 6623   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virginia DOT training: Revise Girder Member Loads input format

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 8/18/2005 7:32:52 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:32:54 PM

From Virginia DOT training: For Girder Member Loads, use a different input format. Instead of using the drop-down load case selection, move the load case into the grid.


Incident 6626   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virginia DOT training: make stiffener/stirrup ranges start distance & spacing the same units

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 8/18/2005 7:57:04 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:57:04 PM

From Virginia DOT training: In the Stiffener or Stirrup Ranges windows, make the Start Distance and Spacing so they are entered in consistent units, i.e., both in feet or both in inches.


Incident 6655   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Using fill plates in bearing analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 8/26/2005 7:44:11 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Friday, August 26, 2005 3:44:11 PM

REPORTED BY:


DESCRIPTION:


One of our engineers is working on a built up plate girder with double angle bearing stiffeners on each side of the web. The bearing stiffeners are full depth of the section, and there is a fill plate the thickness of the flange angles between the web and the stiffener angles on each side. It seems like the section to check as a column for AASHTO 10.54.1.1 would include the stiffener angles, web, and the fill plates. Also, in this case the fill plate sandwiched a section of the web that was larger than 18 * tw. We feel the entire section of the web between the fill plates to be part of the column under consideration. What is the Virtis and/or BRASS policy governing this? Could the fill plates and/or full web section between the fill plates be considered? See attached file for reference.


COMMENTS:


FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/6/2005 1:49:42 PM

This would be an enhancement to both Virtis and BRASS LFD.


1. Virtis does not currently have a way for user to input a fill plate between the bearing stiffeners and web. It would be an enhancement to add that data to Virtis.


2. BRASS LFD does not have an input for the spacing between bearing stiffeners. It would be an enhancement to add that input and then to consider it in the computations in BRASS.


Incident 6699   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Import does not work for a timber deck on a steel beam

Status On Hold

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 9/16/2005 3:39:59 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description


Incident 6700   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Add BRASS engine data for user to pick how to compute shear capacity in reinforced concrete

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 9/16/2005 4:46:45 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:9/16/2005 12:43:12 PM

Submitted on behalf of Robert Fulton based on phone conversation.


BRASS lets you specify if you want Equation 8-48 or 8-49 used to compute shear capacity of RC beams but this feature is not available in Virtis. (see incident 5150).


FROM:rfulton DATE:Friday, September 16, 2005 4:56:43 PM

Should also include the detailed calculation for equation 8-4 (and equ 6-5 of the Maintenance manual) for the allowable stress method.


Incident 6729   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Prestress Design with various strand pulls

Status Suspended

Submitted By Colgrove, George

Date Submitted 9/26/2005 5:50:04 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:gcolgrove DATE:Monday, September 26, 2005 1:50:04 PM

REPORTED BY: George Colgrove


DESCRIPTION:Prestress Design with Various strand pulls


COMMENTS:

In checking a conspan run, I've noticed that there is no way to use various strand pulls in the section. ConSpan will allow for different percent pull forces for different strands. For example, I want the top two strands to be pulled only at a tight 4 to 5 kips just enough to hang the reinforcing on. I have a row roughly 5 inched up from the bottom I want to be pulled at 25% with all the strands at the bottom layer being pulled at the specified 75%. Conspan allows for this and it makes a big difference in the camber calculations. V/O only allows for a single strand type to be used throughout the section. This should be modified to allow for multiple strand pull percentages.


Incident 6766   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Truss Command - Member Load

Status Suspended

Submitted By Bhanushali, Girish

Date Submitted 10/13/2005 3:53:37 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:gbhanushali DATE:10/13/2005 11:47:46 AM


To handle this command , we would require changes to FE engine. Changes would be to convert member loads to nodal loads for truss element.

It was decided for now not to incoporate this command in rating (for now).

Should we remove it from the language?


FROM:jduray DATE:10/13/2005 2:43:05 PM

Remove it since the FE engine does not support it and we do not have a task to enhance the engine to handle it. After the command is removed change this incident to an enhancement and set the status to Suspended.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/19/2006 11:05:54 AM

Changed Project to Support Center/Virtis.


Incident 6767   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Truss Command - Additional Self Load

Status Suspended

Submitted By Bhanushali, Girish

Date Submitted 10/13/2005 3:59:02 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:gbhanushali DATE:10/13/2005 11:53:31 AM


Additional Self Load

We are not sure right now how to incorporate the effects of this command so that engine takes into consideration this load . (with the fact that we don't handle member loads).


FROM:jduray DATE:10/13/2005 2:44:43 PM

Perhaps we can comput an equivalent nodal load. If not remove the command since the FE engine does not support it and we do not have a task to enhance the engine to handle it. After the command is removed change this incident to an enhancement and set the status to Suspended.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/19/2006 11:06:55 AM

Changed Project to Support Center/Virtis.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/20/2006 4:47:04 PM

The FE engine should be enhanced to handle truss member loads.


Incident 6819   

Folder /Support Center

Subject NSG enhancement: copy wheel set from each axle to another axle

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 10/25/2005 5:50:21 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:50:21 PM

REPORTED BY:


DESCRIPTION:


COMMENTS:


There should be an obvious way to copy the wheel configuration from an axle to another (new) axle, similar to copying diaphragms from one bay to another.


FROM:jduray DATE:Monday, March 27, 2006 9:32:30 AM


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:18:15 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 6827   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Allow different vehicles for Inv/Op rating in NSG analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 10/25/2005 7:08:23 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:08:23 PM

REPORTED BY:


DESCRIPTION:


COMMENTS:


I wanted to run a permit truck for a NSG analysis, no inventory rating, operating rating only. In analysis settings, vehicle summary, I select operating rating so that the command button says "add to operating". I then select my vehicle and click the "add to operating" command button. It adds the vehicle to both inventory and operating.


FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:18:20 PM

Also when I try to remove the truck from inventory by selecting the truck in inventory and "remove from analysis" command button, it removes the trucks from both inventory and operating.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/31/2005 12:42:21 PM


FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/2/2005 7:59:05 AM

We need to change the functionality of this window since it seems reasonable that users will want to only do an Operating rating for the NSG vehicle.


Allow user to select/unselect the vehicles for Operating or Inventory only. Still need to restrict user to 1 NSG vehicle (can't have vehicle A for inventory and vehicle B for operating).


FROM:sboukamp DATE:11/2/2005 10:12:23 AM

Resolved for Beta 2.



FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:05:42 PM


It now allows me to select a vehicle to add to operating. Could you please verify that the "Adjacent Lane Vehicle" branch shown is for the user to add another vehicle to accompany the NSG on the bridge? However, it adds that branch for an adjecent lane vehicle even if I specified no accompanying vehicle with my NSG in the vehicle path tab under bridge alternatives/superstructure. Is that a conflict? I tested a little further and added an HS20 from the standard vehicles and it added an adjacent vehicle branch. It also won't let me add a HS20 to inventory and a different standard vehicle to operating like it does when I select the standard analysis type instead of the advanced. I agree with Krisha above that we wouldn't use two different NSG, but I think we should still be allowed to select two different standard vehicles for inventory and operating, therefore I'm resubmitting this incident for consideration.


FROM:jduray DATE:1/3/2006 9:57:24 AM

Item 1) The "Adjacent Lane Vehicle" branch shouold be independent of what you specify for the bridge. No conflict - behavior is as designed.

Item 2) Tim states the following: "I tested a little further and added an HS20 from the standard vehicles and it added an adjacent vehicle branch." - this is as designed.

Item 3) Tim states the following: "It also won't let me add a HS20 to inventory and a different standard vehicle to operating like it does when I select the standard analysis type instead of the advanced." - this is as designed (refer to mockups page 8 "Only one Non-Standard Gage vehicle and one adjacent lane vehicle can be selected for an analysis."


Tim is correct - this is a design flaw...changing Category to "Enhancement".


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:19:25 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 6834   

Folder /Support Center

Subject NSG Tracks instead of wheels

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/26/2005 1:38:05 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:38:05 AM

REPORTED BY:


DESCRIPTION:It is common to evaluate a bridge before allowing a vehicle with tracks to pass over. Crane, paving machines, etc. We need to be able to enter a track (length and width of contact area) instead of just a point load for a wheel. Currently I believe that contact width isn’t used right now – correct?


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:19:54 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 6906   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add engine warnings/messages to results object; Display in GUI

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 11/11/2005 6:25:46 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Friday, November 11, 2005 1:26:26 PM

Based on the discussion from Incident 6239, there needs to be a way for the engine to communicate information back to the GUI. My thinking here is for a messages object to be added to the results object. The engine could write any number of warnings or informational messages to this object, which would then be available once the analysis is complete for the user to review. There would have to be some mechanism for conveying to the user that warnings/messages exist, especially for rating several bridges at once. For example, if a bridge has not been analyzed since a specification change was made; a previously "clean" run could contain warnings that should be reviewed. Varying levels of importance could be assigned to each warning (like in the export), so low level warnings do not trigger the flag indicating that the user should review the warnings. Maybe the user could have some control over which warning levels should trigger a review.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/14/2005 12:48:15 PM

Do these differ from the messages we send to the Analysis Progress Dialog during the export?


It seems to me that a log file is required but to me that is the same as the log that is created during the export.


Incident 6911   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhance Std Engine to apply varying selfweight for haunched girders

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 11/15/2005 7:36:09 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:36:09 PM

Beta 2

For a simple comparison I took RCTrainingBridge1, schedule based definition (4 span), used an HS20 truck for analysis. The rating factors where not even close. The controlling points for the rating where in different spans and at different % locations.

So I wanted to see what did compare favorably so I started with Dead Loads. The reactions at the abutments and the piers did not match up. I summed up all the reactions, for the BRASS run and got 444.2 kips and for the Virtis run I got 375.6 kips. Either the virtis run is 69 kips light or the BRASS run is 24 kips heavy. In either case the most simple check, total dead load from the girder doesn’t match up. BRASS had 3 seperate load cases and Virtis had only 1. Nothing else on it compares favorably either.


I checked the single span definition in RCTrainingBridge1 and found that when checking the dead loads their was oddities also.

The BRASS DL output consisted of 3 separate DL cases that summed up to 74 kips.

The Virtis DL consisted of one DL case called DL1 and it totaled up to 61 kips.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/16/2005 10:27:52 AM

I've entered incident 6916 which is probably the cause of these discrepancies. BRASS and Virtis Std used to produce the same output for RCTrainingBridge1 so something must have gotten broken recently.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/17/2005 1:01:05 PM

Please revisit this problem with the new Virtis Std Engine dll's being sent out today.


FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, November 18, 2005 9:00:03 AM

Using the beta2update2 dll that was sent on 11/18/05

The DL reactions for the Virtis engine balanced but –

The summation of the DL’s in virtis = 513 k and the summation of the DL’s in BRASS = 444 k – so the static summation of the DL’s still don’t add up.

With the DL comparison being non-equal, the ratings don’t compare either, with the HS20 Inv. Truck rating factor in Virtis = 0.499 and BRASS = 1.411.


Referring to VI#6921 – with the virtis engine in viewing the analysis output all DL’s are lumped into one value making it difficult to see which particular DL’s don’t compare.


FROM:xli DATE:11/18/2005 5:36:48 PM


I created a Staad model for BID 11, the dead load reactions match Brass output.

I also noticed that Brass is using 72" as top flange width while computing girder self weight, VirtisStd is using OVERHANG OR SPACING 8.5'.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/21/2005 8:32:59 AM

Virtis has user enter "Tributary width" for top flange for rc tee beam. This is similar to 6926, discuss with Jim.


FROM:xli DATE:11/22/2005 5:09:02 PM

This bridge has parabolic girder profile, Virtis Std is using uniform load instead of parabolic load for girder selfweight, it makes 10% difference. Do we accept this difference?

If we use a couple linear distributed loads to simulate parabolic loads, we can get very accurate results.


FROM:hlathia DATE:Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:42:38 PM

StdEngine is calculating and applying average uniform load due the weight of parabolic haunched girder. This is how it has always been done by BAR7. The dead load (DL1) results will be different for the uniform and trapezoidal loads..


Until StdEngine is revised to calculate and apply non-uniform loads for girder weight for haunched girders, Virtis Export can calculate average unifrom load due to hauched girder and pass it on as a negative unifrom load and also pass on a series of trapezoidal loads for actual girder weight, both as user defined Girder Dead Loads. This should produce accurate results.


My recommendation is to wait unit Virtis StdEngine is revised for calculating and applying trapezoidal loads due to the weight of a haunched girder.


FROM:hlee DATE:2/2/2006 7:32:40 AM

This is in the Enhancement Estimates submitted to Task Force.



FROM:jduray DATE:Monday, March 27, 2006 9:58:28 AM


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:20:34 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 6917   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Engine As Requested/Detailed Results

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 11/16/2005 5:12:48 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:12:49 PM

Beta 2

At he top if the rating results window we have “As Requested and Detailed”. In the Virtis Std Engine you get the same results for each button. I am not able to find a way to view with/without impact or single lane loaded.


Related to this is VI #6050 – returning the single land loaded option to virtis that the TF removed.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/21/2005 10:19:39 AM

The StdEngine does not report that info. Will add this to the enhancement list.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/22/2005 8:09:17 AM

We are to estimate the cost for this enhancement and review with the TF.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:08:35 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/analytical tools/Std Engine (BAR7) to Support Center.


Incident 6921   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Separate Display of Dead Loads in Virtis Std Engine

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 11/16/2005 8:22:04 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 16, 2005 3:22:05 PM

Beta 2

In the Virtis Std Engine, when viewing Analysis results for dead loads. All loads are lumped into one value. In BRASS we can view the Dead Load contribution from the Girder, slab, haunches, rail, overlay all in separate tables. Now in the Virtis Std engine all these loads are lumped in to one value – can we get them in separate tables or is this it?


When trying to compare output from one engine to the other, when the DL’s don’t match up, you know where to look first being they aren’t broken apart?


FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/16/2005 3:42:57 PM



FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/16/2005 3:43:43 PM


FROM:kkennelly DATE:11/16/2005 3:44:06 PM

We are currently unable to split up the dead loads as reported by the Virtis Std Engine. You can review the log file for comments to see the amount of railing load applied to the girder.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/22/2005 8:08:22 AM

We are to estimate the cost for this enhancement and review with the TF.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:08:44 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/analytical tools/Std Engine (BAR7) to Support Center.


Incident 6950   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Revise haunch geometry for PS U beams

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ihnat, Joseph

Date Submitted 11/29/2005 6:08:12 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:jihnat DATE:11/29/2005 1:05:19 PM

Entered on behalf of John Rohner:


I'm having problems getting a newly designed bridge to rate. The bridge

was designed in Conspan. Conspan only accommodates skews up to 60

degrees (rotation amount from a line perpendicular to layout line) but

Virtis will accommodate larger skews which are actually present in this

bridge. This may be one reason for a lesser rating.


One other problem, if the sketch indicates what is being applied, is the

haunch on the tub girders. It looks as if the haunch thickness is being

applied across the outside-to-outside width from flange tip to flange

tip. There is no haunch in the middle section. I've attached a picture

to clarify this. But, in deleting the haunch completely, it only raised

the rating factor from 0.365 to 0.89 for the inventory concrete tension

condition. I did a hand check of the stresses output by Virtis and

verified Virtis' rating factor. I then took the Conspan stresses and

rated the bridge by hand for concrete tension and got a rating factor of

around 1.148.


I'm not sure what the difference is. The superimposed dead loads

applied to each model are similar but the Virtis model has slightly less

which should help, not hurt. Another thing which should help not hurt

is the fact that the LL stresses at bottom are calculated to be less in

Virtis than in Conspan. I'm just trying to see if I'm missing anything

here.


Thanks for all the help.


John Rohner, P.E.

Bridge Engineer

9193 South Jamaica Street

Englewood, CO 80112-5946

720-286-5444 direct

720-286-9706 fax

jrohner@ch2m.com


FROM:jduray DATE:12/2/2005 9:28:17 AM



FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:41:21 PM

Some of the differences in the stresses are due to differences in section properties and possibly the moments calculated by BRASS and CONSPAN. The stresses reported by BRASS appear to be correct given the moments and section properties. Even if I use the Virtis section properties, the rating still does not get above 1.0. Do you or any of your engineers have any ideas?


The user’s issue with the haunch may need to be added as an enhancement. The haunch is applied over the entire top flange width regardless of the beam type. For a tub, an upward uniform load should be added to the Member Loads window to counteract any unwanted haunch load between the top flanges on each wall. Should more geometry be added to the haunch window for a tub, so the user can customize the haunch as needed by the user?



FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:27:39 PM

E-mail from John Rohner:

As far as the tubs go, in my opinion, the Virtis software needs to be corrected. Yes, you can apply an upward force to alleviate the improper loading situation resulting from the haunch but there is still the composite section properties affected. I should have taken a little more time to review and compare the section properties of Conspan with that of Virtis as well as the DL moments but I had a deadline and I’ve now moved on from the project. I would like to take a glance at the comparisons but have another deadline and won’t have a chance for a while to look at this. I have included the Conspan section properties and loads for your review. Hopefully, you’ll be able to take a look at this. According to CDOT, other consultants are running into problems with Virtis and tub ratings so hopefully this information will help in resolving issues with my project as well as any agencies using tubs. Thanks a lot.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Monday, December 12, 2005 11:46:03 AM

I found an error in the cross section export that occurs for the CDOT U72 U-beam. The top fillet was not being exported due to a negative fillet height being determined. Note that this error does not occur for the Texas U-beams on which the cross section conversion was based. The export has been corrected. These changes still did not increase the rating significantly.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Friday, March 03, 2006 6:16:15 PM

The difference between the CONSPAN and BRASS ratings for concrete tension is due to differences between the various stresses used to calculate the rating factor. After correcting the export to generate more accurate section dimensions, the moment of inertia and c.g. depth were much closer to the CONSPAN properties. This leaves the moments as the reason why the stresses are different. The BRASS stress and rating factor calculations are sound. The moments may be different because due to assumptions made by CONSPAN and BRASS on span lengths, i.e., centerline of bearing, centerline of final supports, etc.


The request for enhancing the haunch geometry for a box beam remains.


Incident 6953   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Std Engine: Allow different concrete strengths (F'c) for slab and beam of RC Bridge

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 11/30/2005 2:09:25 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:hlathia DATE:Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:10:07 AM

BAR7 allowed only one concrete strength for the reinforced concrete section and the same capability was carried to BAR8. Some RC bridges can have different concrete strengths for the slab and the beam. Adding this feature to BAR8 will allow the user to rate a RC bridge more accurately.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:20:50 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 6956   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Allow Std Engine to use Non-standard gage analysis results instead of CBA results

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 11/30/2005 3:15:40 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:hlathia DATE:Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:15:40 AM

Currently BAR8 uses the line girder analysis results produced by PENNDOT's Continuous Beam Analysis (CBA) program. If BAR8 can use externally suppled results from a 3-D model instead of CBA results, BAR8 can be used to rate bridges for a Non-standard gage vehicles. Provide an option within BAR8 to use CBA results or externally suppled results (moments, shears, reactions etc.).


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:09:18 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/analytical tools/Std Engine (BAR7) to Support Center.


Incident 6957   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Allow user to enter differnet impact factor for each live load

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 11/30/2005 4:06:53 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:hlathia DATE:Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:06:53 AM

Currently impact factor is either calaculated by BAR8 as per AASHTO or it can be entered by the user on the Project Identification line. This impact factor is applied to all live loads. Add Impact Factor input item on the Lane Loading line. If the user has entered a value on the Lane Loading line, use that as the impact factor otherwise use the calculated impact factor or the Impact Factor entered on the Project Identification line.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/2/2005 10:17:00 AM

Is the lane loading line for a vehicle?


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:09:27 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/analytical tools/Std Engine (BAR7) to Support Center.


Incident 6959   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add an option to perform Fatigue Life Analysis as per AASHTO instead of DM4

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 11/30/2005 5:04:02 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:hlathia DATE:Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:04:02 PM

Currently BAR7 and the StdEngine performs Fatigue Life Analysis per PENNDOT's Design Manual Part 4 (DM4). Add an option to BAR8 to perform Fatigue Life Analysis per AASHTO 1996.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/7/2005 10:06:45 AM


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:09:48 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/analytical tools/Std Engine (BAR7) to Support Center.


Incident 6961   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Revise Std Engine to conform to 17th Edition of AASHTO for ASD and LFD ratings.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 12/1/2005 3:31:22 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:hlathia DATE:Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:31:23 AM

Revise BAR8 to conform to the 17th Edition of AASHTO Standard Specifications for ASD and LFD ratings of steel girder, reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete bridges. Revisions will be limited to specifications conformance for calculating rating factors only.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:09:59 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/analytical tools/Std Engine (BAR7) to Support Center.


FROM:hlee DATE:9/14/2006 3:39:33 PM

Ref Incident 7598.


Incident 6965   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Results at change points not visible in Virtis Analysis Results window for VirtisStdEngine

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 12/2/2005 3:47:26 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/2/2005 10:42:35 AM

Run G1 in Training Bridge1 using the Virtis Std Engine. This member has cross section change points at 36.67' and 124.33'. Text output file for VirtisStdEngine shows section properties, DL and LL forces and rating factors at these change points. But the Analysis Results window in Virtis doesn't show these points, it only shows tenth points.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:12/5/2005 10:18:35 AM

Hasmukh, while investigating this incident, I noticed that VirtisStdEngine does not create nodes (analysis points) at cutoff points (change points). It only creates nodes at 10th points. The engine reports dead and live load moments and shear forces at cutoff points by using interpolation.


I was wondering what it would take to make the cutoff points as analysis points in VirtisStdEngine. By doing this the results will be more accurate and we can report the results to Virtis much more easily.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:12/5/2005 11:32:51 AM

Deflections are not reported at cutoff points in the text output file.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/7/2005 9:59:29 AM

Changing to an enhancement since modifications to StdEngine are required.


FROM:hlee DATE:12/28/2005 9:46:30 AM

In "Virtis StdEngine Enhancement Estimates 12-08-05.xls", Hasmukh estimated 224+ hrs to:


Revise CBA to calculate influence lines and load effects at cutoff (section property range) points in addition to the 20th points and do not use interpolation to calculate effects at non-twentieth analysis points. Also, revise Virtis StdEngine to report deflections at cutoff points in addition to the 10th points.


"This revision will require major overhaul of PENNDOT's CBA program that is used as an engine in Virtis StdEngine. Currently CBA generates influence lines at 20th points along the span of a continuous beam and calculates load effects at these points. It interpolates between 20th points to obtain results at other desired points such as points where section properties change, brace points or other locations. It uses parabolic interpolation for calculating moments, deflections and rotations at non-twentieth points and uses straight line interpolation for calculating reactions and shears. It also uses interpolation to get concurrent effects at non-twentieth points. Virtis StdEngine reports deflections only at 10th points. For these revisions the following will have to be done.


Introduce an option in CBA to use interpolation (as it is currently being done) to calculate effects at cutoff points or to generate influence lines for all analysis points including cutoff and other points.


Let CBA use the 20th points as nodal points for solving the flexibility equations as it is currently being done. Generate influence lines for all effects at 20th points, cutoff points and other points as required. Each influence line will consist of an effect at a given analysis point with ordinates at every 20th point of the span. This will require

generating and storing more influence lines (influence line for every effect at every analysis point) and then analyzing each influence line for a given loading (static dead loads

or moving live loads). The influence lines for deflections will only be generated at 20th points. The deflections at cutoff points will be calculated using interpolation between 20th points. This will also require either eliminating or by-passing the calculations of interpolated results. Virtis StdEngine uses concurrent effects to calculate moment-shear interaction ratings. These concurrent effects are also obtained by interpolation. It will also require calculating the concurrent effects at non-twentieth points by analyzing the influence lines at these points.


These modifications will also require major testing efforts since the method of obtaining results will be changed. It will also require a thorough review of CBA source code.


These revisions will give more accurate results at cutoff points, but the difference in results may not be significant. The deflections at cutoff points will still have to be calculated

by interpolation as deflection influence lines are generated at 20th points since the influence lines for deflections are the byproduct of flexibility method of analysis.

If influence lines are to be generated at non-twentieth points, it will require complete revision of the flexibility method solution (additional 80 hrs effort).

(200 hrs for CBA routine revisions as suggested above for coding , unit and alpha testing; 24 hrs to calculate and report deflections at cutoff points.)

If PENNDOT agrees to make these revisions, the cost for Virtis StdEngine can be cut by 2/3rd. PENNDOT seems to be agreeable to make these revisions, but the schedule will

have to be negotiated.

"


FROM:hlee DATE:12/28/2005 10:06:00 AM

Option 2 (56 hrs): From Hasmukh - Currently in BAR7 and Virtis StdEngine, the deflections are calculated and reported at the 10th points only. The deflections at cutoff points will be calculated from the 10th point deflections using the parabolic interpolation as it is done for calculating the moments at cutoff points. If we make only the above revision for incident 6965, it will take 24 hours to revise Virtis StdEngine.

Mehrdad estimated additional 32 hrs to collect and pass back change points results.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:10:06 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/analytical tools/Std Engine (BAR7) to Support Center.


Incident 6988   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Setting Allowable Fatigue Stress

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 12/13/2005 10:13:27 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, December 13, 2005 5:13:51 PM

In all of our BRASS datasets for steel bridges we have set the allowable fatigue stress to 16 or 21 KSI using the STEEL-4 command in BRASS. Those original old datasets have just a handful of POI’s analyzed. Now when we enter this bridge in Virtis we don’t set any specific POI’s, we tell it to do all the 10th points. The BRASS default for the 6th parameter of the STEEL-GIRDER-CONTROL command is 1x10E10 ksi.


How do we set the allowable fatigue stress to 16 or 21 KSI for all these points.



FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:14:48 PM

I don't know of any way to set the allowable fatigue stress globally. For now, you will have to set the POI control option to 0, enter all desired points of interest, and manully set the allowable fatigue stress at each point of interest. I know this will be an unacceptable work-around even in the short-term.


I don't see anywhere in the Virtis/Opis that we can even enter the allowable fatigue stress globally or on a schedule basis. Therefore, we have no way of exporting anything to BRASS. This issue could be addressed in a couple ways:

1. Add an allowable fatigue stress schedule to Virtis/Opis and revise the export accordingly.

2. Add a default allowable fatigue stress to the member alternative engine properties and use this on the STEEL-GIRDER-CONTROL command.


Option 2 could be implemented more quickly and with less funds than Option 1.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/9/2011 2:54:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time

As requested by the TAG (April 2011), change this request from BRASS Engine to AASHTO Engine.


Incident 7109   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Remove Girder Concrete entry from Beam Details window

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 2/15/2006 8:14:57 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:14:58 PM


Please see attached Word document for illustration.


Is it necessary to require entry of the PS concrete being used in two separate places for a Member alternative? First it is specified under Stress Limits for the Superstructure Definition, then it is entered in two separate places under Member Alternatives/Beam Detail.


Since the Girder Material (under the Span Detail tab) and the Name (under the Stress Limit Ranges tab) should always be the same, it seems that only one entry, say under the Span Detail tab, should be necessary.


Apart from the inconvenience of redundant entry, a problem that can occur (and has) is that the Concrete Material can be changed in the item under Stress Limits w/o changing the Girder Material (as should be done). This can result in unexpected and erroneous results.


FROM:jduray DATE:2/16/2006 8:25:51 AM

The stress limits are a function of the concrete material so that is why it must be specified on the Stress Limit Set window. I think it is ok to specify the concrete material on the Span Detail tab so we know what the material is for the entire beam. We filter the stress limits on the Stress Limit Ranges tab so only the stress limits for the concrete material specified on the Span Detail tab are available. We don't allow the window to be closed if the concrete material is changed on the Span Detail tab without correcting the assignment of stress limits on the Stress Limit Ranges tab. It doesn't seem possible to have a mismatch between the stress limits and the concrete material. I don't see it as duplicate data entry. The concrete material for the beam is only specified once - on the Span Detail tab. Stress limits that correspond to the concrete material are selected on the Stress Limit Ranges tab.


FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:53:45 PM


Jim, it is possible to get different values between the “Girder Material” under the Span Details tab and the “Name” under the Stress Limit Ranges tab. My consultant was able to do it:

1. Set up your model, e.g. - 0450082(PSAnalysisProblems).bbd (see incident 7105).

2. Changing nothing, select the Member Alternative under one of the Members (say, 48" PS I-Beam under 3 - 2nd W Int/) and analyze it.

3. In the BRASS Output File, under AASHTO Serviceability Check 9.15.2.2(b) find/check the values for 0.4 fc prime (2800. psi) and sqrt fc prime (84.), which are as they should be for f’c = 7000 as specified in the Stress Limit Set for the Superstructure Definition.

4. Close the output file, go back to the model, call up the defined Stress Limit Set and change the Concrete Material from its current concrete material reference (f’c = 7000 psi in the referenced model) to a different one (say, f’c = 6000 psi).

5. Changing nothing else, analyze the same Member Alternative again and check the same values in the output. You will find that they are the same as before. For f’c = 6000 psi, the values should be, respectively, 2400. psi & 77.

So, effectively, the values for f’c under the Span Details & Stress Limit Ranges tabs are different. This should not be possible.


The duplicate entry/redundancy is not so much with having to enter a Stress Limit Set and also to specify it under the Member Alternative. We understand the necessity of that. It is, however, duplicate entry when, under the Beam Details, we must enter the Girder Material (w/reference to Materials/Concrete) in addition to the Name of the Stress Limit Set, which already must contain a reference to the same Concrete Material for the applicable span of the Beam. If the Girder Material and the Concrete Material for the named Stress Limit Set must always match, why do we have to manually enter the Girder Material? The system should automatically use the Concrete Material specified for the applicable Stress Limit Set. If this were done, there would obviously be no need for the Girder Material field under the Span Details tab to be editable, tho’, if desired, it could still be displayed as a non-editable field. If the Girder Material was automatically generated according to the “Name” entered under the Stress Limit Ranges tab, this probably wouldn't be an issue.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:5/1/2006 11:44:01 AM

Removal of Girder Material selection from window is an enhancement request to change the UI. Incident 7197 deals with some validation to help with this problem.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:5/2/2006 9:23:23 AM

Also note that BRASS LFD does not use the allowable concrete stresses on the Stress Limit window, it computes them based on the concrete material assigned to the girder.


Incident 7157   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Virts Std Engine Doesn’t Support Fixed End Conditions

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 3/7/2006 6:08:10 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:08:11 PM

Beta 6

In verifying another incident I came across a short coming in the Virtis Std Engine. When I changed my end support to Fixed the std engine will fail to run. Is this a known shortcoming? Fixed end conditions are fairly common, ei: Steel girders embedded in the abutments.


For my example I used the “As Rated” superstructure definition and member #2 of the attached .xml.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/7/2006 1:34:54 PM

Hasmukh - can you verify this?


FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:13:46 PM

I am attaching another example of fixed supports not being handled, this one is a RC bridge, the other one was a welded plate.


FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:19:37 PM

This RC structure I added - keep in mind that to test this you will have to add shear DF's and shear bars to make it run after you fix the non-suported end condition.


FROM:hlathia DATE:Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:24:21 PM

PennDOT's BAR7 (and hence AASHTO Engine) does not handle structures with fixed ends. All supports must be hinged or roller supports. To handle fixed supports, CBA will require major revisions





FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, March 13, 2006 10:54:05 AM

In VI #7159 you added the following for the shear limitations:


"Add a summary of limitations topic to the StdEngine engine help file and a note to the mbr alt in the StdEngine engine help to indicate ignore shear is ignored and the analysis may fail without shear reinforcement."


Can we have this topic also listed as a limitation there?


FROM:hlee DATE:3/13/2006 12:05:20 PM

This will be included in the limitation topic.


FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:24:33 AM

Due to this limitation of the Std Engine - KS can't rate it's 1024 RC Parabolic Slab structures. All of this type of structure has a monolithic abutment, we assume a fixed abutment support and us a spring to simulate true behavior.

In order to use the Std engine for this type of structure we would have to modify every file with this type of fixed support.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/19/2006 11:21:28 AM

Duplicate of 6683


Incident 7193   

Folder /Support Center

Subject LFD Factors-allow blank values to considered as unchanged from AASHTO instead of as 0

Status On Hold

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 3/20/2006 1:17:45 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:mordoobadi DATE:3/20/2006 9:16:30 AM


From Tim Armbrecht:


Other suggested issues that should be addressed w/program enhancements.

1. When specifying modified LFD Load Factors, the Resistance* Factors must be manually coded or they are assumed by Virtis to be 0.0. When any of the available load or strength reduction factors are left blank, they should be assumed to be unchanged from the AASHTO specification. *This term should be changed to Strength Reduction in accordance with AASHTO LFD specifications since "Resistance" is not used there at all.

3. Utilization of rebar development length not possible in the analysis of concrete structures using BRASS.

4. For non-composite structures Stage 2 loads cannot be specified as uniformly distributed. AASHTO specifies that superimposed dead loads (SDL's) such as parapets & wearing surface are distributed uniformly to all beams w/o regard to composite or non-composite beam action. Virtis should be modified to allow system computation of uniformly distributed SDL's for non-composite structures.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/21/2006 9:32:19 AM


FROM:kkennelly DATE:5/1/2006 9:47:38 AM

Item 3 now in 7279, Item 4 in 7280


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:21:44 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 7198   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Update the jacking stress ratio automatically for user

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 3/21/2006 3:42:30 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/21/2006 11:33:54 AM

Submitted by Tim Armbrecht in 5.4 beta testing:


Prestress Properties - The Jacking stress ratio (JSR) is not updated to the correct value when the P/S strand material is changed. e.g., If the strand material had been entered wrongly, say as LR (for which the JSR = 0.75) and is corrected to SR (JSR = 0.7), the JSR stays as it was for the originally entered strand material.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/21/2006 11:44:06 AM

This situation has existed since prestress was introduced in Virtis/Opis. We compute the JSR when user selects the strand material when they create a new Prestress Property. User is requesting we re-compute the JSR if they change the strand material selection on that window. We'll have to prompt user with a question asking if they want us to change the JSR if they change the strand material and the strand type changes from LR to SR and vice versa.


FROM:hlee DATE:5/28/2008 11:09:23 AM

BUG 12/07 by TAG


FROM: Joseph Ihnat DATE: 6/5/2009 9:45:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Done for version 6.1.0 (Beta Build 2).


FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 7/24/2009 3:00:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The prompt is fine. However, there is still a problem. When you change the strand specification under Materials (which is likely when changing from a wrong material that may have been selected, or if you are using a previously coded model to start a new model), the JS is not recomputed at all. This still needs to be taken care of.


FROM: Joseph Ihnat DATE: 1/29/2010 10:09:40 AM Eastern Standard Time

Added a message that pops up if the user changes the Strand Type.

There was never any intent to update the domain under the structdef. We aren't doing anything similar elsewhere in the GUI.

Could possibly be an enhancement.


Incident 7242   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Allow user to enter more than one range of top flexural reinforcement for each span in Std Engine

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 4/5/2006 2:15:15 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 10:10:23 AM

Changed Project from Beta Testing/analytical tools/Std Engine (BAR7) to Support Center.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/10/2009 10:05:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time

In Virtis Std Engine, only one range of negative flexural reinforcement is allowed for a composite steel girder.


Incident 7255   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject How to overide Allowable Deflection Denominator from 800 to 1000

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ha, Binh

Date Submitted 4/14/2006 5:35:28 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:bha DATE:Friday, April 14, 2006 1:35:34 PM

Bridge Section - MassHighway


In LOAD-LIVE-DEFLECTION command of Brass, its fifth parameter is Allowable Deflection Denominator with the value of 800 (default). My question is how to change to 1000 to satisfy the deflection limit of L/1000.

Thanks,


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:47:11 PM

This parameter is not currently exposed to the Opis user through the engine properties.


FROM:jduray DATE:Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:48:45 AM

This should probably be added one of the windows but not engine data since it pertains to the spec. Brian will check into where the appropriate place would be.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:50:39 AM

BRASS allows the user to specify the allowable deflection denominator or an absolute allowable deflection in inches. Either one of these values can be input for a particular live load combination such as 1) design truck alone or 2) 25% of the design truck plus the design lane load. The deflection check is really independent of the material, so this input could be placed on the Analysis tab of the Superstructure Definition window. Another alternative would be to put this input on the Factors tab of the Member Alternative Description window, which would provide more flexibility if the user wanted to change this on a material basis.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/27/2007 2:56:07 PM

Suspended until we get approval from Task Force.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/27/2007 3:47:31 PM

Info from Brian: The LOAD-LIVE-DEFLECTION command was added to BRASS in 2001. All the parameters including the deflection limit were implemented at that time.


Incident 7293   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Make it easier to Re-Register the Software

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 5/9/2006 4:04:55 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, May 09, 2006 12:04:56 PM

With both Virtis / Opis Superstructure and Opis Substructure installed on one PC it is tedious to say the least switching back and forth (register.bat)


We need three things added (fixed)


1. A more elegant way to register/re-register either piece of software.

2. The default in register.bat should be “/s” and not “%1”

3. The register.bat file should have an icon assigned to it (not a yucky windows default one) and placed on workspace just like the other program icons


FROM:jduray DATE:5/15/2006 11:17:57 AM

I will see what we can do to make this more friendly. Keep in mind though that we are asking that they not be installed on the same PC as V/O Superstructure. We don't want users confused by having to register.


FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, May 15, 2006 2:36:16 PM

That is exactly the problem – user will be confused.


How many designers have more than one pc available to them? I bet not very many. Every one of our designers have one pc and only one pc. If they are to make use of V/O superstructure and Opis substructure they have to co-exist on one pc -


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:22:56 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


Incident 7304   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Member Capacity in output

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ihnat, Joseph

Date Submitted 5/18/2006 11:39:13 AM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:jihnat DATE:5/18/2006 7:37:56 AM

via email:


I was wondering if it is possible to have Virtis 5.4 report the actual member capacity as it did in previous versions.


Previously it would report:

Member Capacity

DL Effect


Capacity for (LL+I)

Actual (LL+I)


Rating


I am just trying to verify that the capacity being calculated by Virtis matches what I am calculating by hand.


Thank you-

Laura Thompson

Laura.Thompson@tshengineering.com


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Friday, June 16, 2006 11:39:50 AM

There have been no recent changes to BRASS-LFD to stop this information from being generated. Please send me some screenshots of what was previously reported, what is now reported, and also where this information was reported, i.e., the BRASS output file or the Virtis GUI. This information should help me better understand the issue.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Friday, June 16, 2006 1:52:23 PM

I attached a PDF file from the user that illustrates the BARS output and the latest output available from within Virtis. This clarified the request. Currently, Virtis only allows the critical rating factor and location to be passed back from the BRASS engine. This is why the reports contain the information they do. For now, this information can be obtained from the BRASS output file.


The user would like to see the member capacity, dead load contribution, and live load contribution in the Virtis reports. I believe this was an enhancement request that was discussed but never approved.


Incident 7328   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Reporting Virtis Std Engine LL Impact in the Virtis Analysis Results window and canned reports

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 5/24/2006 7:18:03 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:5/24/2006 3:13:39 PM

The Virtis Std Engine output file shows the impact factor used for pos/neg moment and shear. It would be nice to be able to view that data in the Virtis Analysis Results window and in the canned LFD analysis output report available in the Report Tool. The canned LFD analysis output report shows ** as not available for these impact factors since they weren't available for BRASS.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/19/2006 11:08:15 AM

Changed Project to Support Center/Virtis.


Incident 7411   

Folder /Support Center

Subject ms sqlserver- VO using windows and LDAP authentication

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 6/13/2006 3:25:34 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:pjensen DATE:Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:25:34 AM

Pontis is supporting Windows authentication. When will VO support this process?


Incident 7417   

Folder /Support Center

Subject NSG enhancement - store influence surfaces (lines for 2D) for future use

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 6/13/2006 6:59:17 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:59:35 PM


It would be a good idea to store the influence lines and surfaces. Once they are generated, they should be good for that bridge until there is a change (like deterioration). The next time a user wants to run a superload over the bridge, the analysis should go a lot faster. Since it can take up to an hour to analyze a superload over a 5 span bridge, a user would probably be willing to put up with this kind of delay once.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:27:28 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.

Incident entered for 5.5 Beta.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/26/2011 12:39:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Large estimate based on storing FE results.


Incident 7429   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Compute LFD Dist. Factor for Non-Splayed Girders in a Splayed Girder System

Status Assigned

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/14/2006 6:04:44 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:04:44 PM

5 Girders system

Girder line 1-4 are parallel and girder 5 is splayed. I should be able to use the compute button in Virtis to find the Dist. Factors for girder 1-3. A window pops up not allowing the compute button for any girders as long is there is at least one splayed girder.



FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:18:38 AM


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:24:37 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:27:05 AM

Incident entered for 5.5 Beta.


Incident 7440   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Expand/Collapse Branch in Library Explorer

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/15/2006 1:22:41 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:22:41 AM

Expand/Collapse Branch is not available in the Library Explorer


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:25:36 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.

Incident entered for 5.5 Beta.


FROM:tthompson DATE:Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:41:07 PM

Should probably have similar behaviour for all tree structures in all windows - not just bridge explorer.


Incident 7445   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Wizard to Create Superstructures and Superstructure Alts

Status Assigned

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/15/2006 3:42:46 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:42:46 AM

We have to enter the number of spans and span lengths “again”. With a very long structure this can be tedious. Would like to see maybe a check box to select one of the structures you have already entered, similar to the pulldown on the next window (superstructure alternative).

Robert F. has a very good example of how tedious this extra input is.


FROM:jduray DATE:6/16/2006 8:11:13 AM

We need to address this for the 5.5 release if possible. We may need to get TF approval and charge to TF Directed for this work since it is an enhancement, not a bug.


First step is to brainstorm some ideas and then give the TAG and TF some mockups. Should try to have a plan for the TF to review before the July 12th TF meeting so they can discuss and approve.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/19/2006 8:04:39 AM

Duplicate of of 6527


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:29:45 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, November 07, 2007 1:41:40 PM

We reviewed this for 5.6 but it wasn't included


FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, February 22, 2008 7:39:47 AM

Reviewed new mockups in Feb 08


Incident 7446   

Folder /Support Center

Subject truss deck def needs to include timber decks

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 6/15/2006 4:23:59 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:pjensen DATE:Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:23:59 PM

Most to all of the decks on trusses are timber decks. I do not have a faclity to rate the deck when rating the truss and floor system.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/10/2006 9:28:32 AM

Changed Project to Support Center.

Incident entered for 5.5 Beta.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/8/2006 8:05:14 AM

Steve Mample of Idaho DOT indicated that he also needs timber deck in trusses at the UG 2006 meeting.


Incident 7461   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject "Compute From Typical Section" button should be available to just compute Std effective flange width for 2-girder system.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Najjar, Walid

Date Submitted 6/21/2006 5:28:59 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:hlee DATE:6/21/2006 1:21:25 PM

Entered on behalf of Walid S. Najjar, CHAS. H. SELLS, INC.


E-mail received on 6/21/06:

=====================================================================

Herman,


Thanks for your prompt response. Article 10.38.3.2 of the AASHTO Standard

Specifications is applicable to the effective flange width of deck over

fascia girder, independent of an adjacent interior girder as required by the

AASHTO LRFD Specifications. The LFD and ASD methods in the Standard

Specifications will continue to be used for load ratings of existing

bridges, particularly those previously designed with the same methods. And

therefore, I suggest that an option for automatic Virtis calculation of

effective flange width over fascia girder be considered and provided to

users of the program.


Sincerely,


Waly



-----Original Message-----

From: Bridgeware [mailto:Bridgeware@mbakercorp.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:47 AM

To: wnajjar@chashsells.com

Subject: Re: Fwd: Virtis Incident on Effective Flange Width

forTwo-Girder System



Waly,


Your observation is correct. The "Compute From Typical Section" button is

only available for a girder system with more than 2 girders. This button is

also not available for prestressed U beam member alternatives. The LRFD

effective flange width of an exterior girder is dependent on the effective

flange width of the adjacent interior girder. There is no specific guidance

in the spec for a 2-girder system, so the button is not available for a

2-girder system.


Sincerely,

Herman Lee


>>> Mehrdad Ordoobadi 6/21/06 11:13:43 AM >>>



>>> "Walid Najjar" 06/21/06 10:41 AM >>>

Dear Mehrdad,


The Virtis software in its current version (5.4) does not calculate an

effective flange width (of deck) for a two-girder span system. In other

words an input value must be calculated manually, because there is no

"Compute from Typical Sections" select-box in “Member

Alternative/Girder/Deck Profile/Deck Concrete”, as is the case for three or

more girder systems.


Since our brief phone conversation yesterday, I verified this observation on

a newly created rolled-steel two-girder simple-span system. Initially I

thought that the issue is due to the fact that the subject bridge span was

created with an earlier version of Virtis, at a time when manual calculation

of effective flange width was required; but it is seems that this issue

remains in the current version of the program.


I would appreciate it if you could confirm my observation, using any

simple-span parameters you may choose. Perhaps a Virtis incident in this

regard or suggestion for improvement should be reported to AASHTOWare.


Sincerely,


Waly


Walid S. Najjar, Ph.D., P.E.

CHAS. H. SELLS, INC.

Technical Quality Manager

555 Pleasantville Road, South Building

Briarcliff Manor, New York 10510

Tel: 914-747-1120

Fax: 914-747-1956

E-mail: wnajjar@chashsells.com

=====================================================================


Incident 7471   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Unable to generate LRFD flexture analysis summary and shear analysis summary for RC bridge

Status Suspended

Submitted By Li, Xinmei

Date Submitted 6/27/2006 8:04:28 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:xli DATE:6/27/2006 4:00:52 PM

See attatched bridge, do LRFD analysis for G2, Interior 36" RC Tee Beam, unable to generate LRFD flexture analysis summary and shear analysis summary with report tool.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/14/2006 8:57:50 AM

The report tool is not meant to create the flexure and shear analysis summary for reinforced concrete members. That wasn't in the original work plan for this feature.


Incident 7510   

Folder /Support Center

Subject response file for the installer

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 7/20/2006 4:18:03 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:pjensen DATE:Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:18:18 PM

after the install of 5.4 on all our system. We (MDT) need to repackage the installer to us it with our software delivery system. This was very painfull. Our systems person was wondering if the product is setup for a response file so that the install can be automated. If there is not, then we are requesting that all future installers have the capablility to run a response file with the installer for automated and silent installs.


Incident 7538   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject UG 2006 - Design tool for P/S beam capacity

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/4/2006 3:08:19 PM

Estimated Cost Scope reqd

Description FROM:jduray DATE:8/4/2006 11:05:23 AM

The Opis UG ranked this number 1 priority.

Add design capability to Opis for P/S beams. This includes design of the strand pattern including harped and debonded strands (to match current analaysis capability). It seems their preference is for this to be added to the engine rather than the design tool. We should consider improving the design tool to make it more useable or remove it.


FROM:jduray DATE:8/4/2006 12:11:57 PM

Suggestions from Ken for strand design:

1 Straight - set by number required at CL beam, Start from the bottom up and outside in

2 debond - rules at end (alt/%/max), debond in increments of 5 feet.

3 harp - top down, harp location is set by the designer


Incident 7539   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject UG 2006 - Steel Design

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/4/2006 3:10:15 PM

Estimated Cost Scope reqd

Description FROM:jduray DATE:8/4/2006 11:13:00 AM

The Opis UG ranked this number 2 priority.

Add design capability to Opis for steel plate girders. Capability should include sizing of the web depth and flanges for simple and continuous span configurations.


FROM:jduray DATE:8/4/2006 11:14:55 AM



FROM:kobeidat DATE:Monday, August 07, 2006 3:47:13 PM

The sizing should not be only based on weight. The cost of splicing might more than offset the saving in weight. The sizing should use some common sence rules ie saving need to be at least 400lbs of steel to offset 1 added connection. Area of the plates can't be doubled on both side of connection and so on


FROM:mhasan DATE:Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:34:43 PM

As a minimum, the Designer should be able to set the limit on these items: a) minimum web thickness; b) maximum web depth; c) minimum flange width (top & bottom); d) web depth variation/increment control for girder optimization; e) minimum haunch to be used for composite section properties (zero to any preferred value); f) member stiffness control in the +ve and -ve regions (this would simplify verification of results between engines).


Also, provide bearing stiffener design and deck pouring sequence analysis/design check capabilities.


Include girder performance ratio in the output.


Incident 7540   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject UG 2006 - Shear stirrup design for P/S beams

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/4/2006 3:10:57 PM

Estimated Cost Scope reqd

Description FROM:jduray DATE:8/4/2006 11:15:42 AM

The Opis UG ranked this number 5 priority.




FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, August 07, 2006 11:24:14 AM

See VI # 4766 for Dup.


Incident 7541   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject UG 2006 - Stiffener spacing design

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/4/2006 3:11:34 PM

Estimated Cost Scope reqd

Description FROM:jduray DATE:8/4/2006 11:16:17 AM

The Opis UG ranked this number 6 priority.


Incident 7543   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Shrinkage in 3D schematic is misleading

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 8/7/2006 12:59:40 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/7/2006 8:55:49 AM

Suggestion from 2006 UG training. BID23, hammerhead pier analysis from Pier1 Example problem. Shrinkage forces show up on the 3D schematic and they look like big values when in fact hammerhead shouldn't have shrinkage forces. If you hover over the shrinkage the forces all show up as 0.00.


Suggestion is to not show values if they are all essentially zero.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/10/2009 10:55:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Status Beta TAG 6/9/09.


Incident 7544   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Don't show forces for rigid links in the 3D schematic

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 8/7/2006 1:01:19 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/7/2006 9:00:41 AM

Suggestion from 2006 UG meeting. Pier1 training example 3D schematic shows shrinkage forces for rigid link members. Suggestion is to not show any forces for rigid links in the 3D schematic.


Incident 7545   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Save 3D schematic settings

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 8/7/2006 1:03:12 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:8/7/2006 9:02:22 AM

Suggestion from 2006 UG meeting. Save 3D Schematic settings while Opis Sub is open. Don't have to save once you close Opis Sub but would be nice to save while you are working in the BWS.


Incident 7604   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject VSE analysis fails with integral wearing surface

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 9/13/2006 4:39:41 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:39:42 PM

VSE will not analyze a steel composite structure with an integral wearing surface (where the deck Structural Thickness is greater than Total Deck Thickness). (See StrSlabGTTotDk(0860037).xml)


FROM:jduray DATE:Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:27:38 PM

How can the structural thickness exceed the total deck thickness?


FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Friday, September 15, 2006 8:55:21 AM

Jim, this refers to where the original deck has been scarified and a concrete overlay has been added, which the rater wishes to consider as structural, and therefore part of the composite section. Since this can be done in BRASS for P/S and steel composite structures, VSE should be modified to accept this. We also recommend allowing this for R/C structures also.


FROM:hlee DATE:9/15/2006 12:19:33 PM

BRASS requires Total Deck Thickness and Structural Thickness as inputs whereas Virtis Std Engine requires Total Deck Thickness and Integral Wearing Surface Thickness as inputs. Since a negative Integral Wearing Surface Thickness is not a realistic input for the Virtis Std Engine, Jim decided that the export should exit with error message.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/4/2006 9:01:54 AM

Tim - after the overlay is placed isn't the total deck thickness increased? Which thickness is used to compute the deck DL?


FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, October 04, 2006 4:32:40 PM


Here is my consultant's response:


To the first question, the answer is NO. That is, if one is considering "total deck thickness" in terms of the Virtis data field "Total deck thickness" (under the "Deck (Cont’d)" tab of the "Structure Typical Section" window). This "total deck thickness" is actually reduced by the depth of deck surface scarification. When the new concrete wearing surface is added, the roughness caused by the scarification provides for a mechanical shear bond between it and the reduced thickness original deck, thus the two act together to provide composite structural support for the live load. Therefore, under "Deck Profile" the data field, "Structural Thickness (in)" is entered as the sum of the "Total deck thickness" and the data field "Wearing surface thickness" (under the Wearing Surface tab of the "Structure Typical Section" window). This is not a perfect structural representation of what’s going on (since it makes the new wearing surface as part of the support for the Stage 2 DL when in fact it only supports the LL), but it is close enough.

To the second question, The Stage 1 DL uses the value entered for "Total deck thickness" and the Stage 2 DL uses the value entered for "Wearing surface thickness".


Response to hlee (9/15/06 12:19:33 PM):

In part - "BRASS requires Total Deck Thickness and Structural Thickness as inputs whereas Virtis Std Engine requires Total Deck Thickness and Integral Wearing Surface Thickness as inputs."


I know of no field in Virtis that would correspond to entry of VSE’s "Integral Wearing Surface Thickness". Where is it? It seems that, for both BRASS and VSE, there could/should be a check box to indicate that a wearing surface is integral with the deck. This would make it so that, when the user does a "Compute Deck Profile from Structure Typical Section", the Structural Thickness field would be computed as the sum of the two data fields, "Total Deck Thickness" and "Wearing Surface".


Additional thought "The term "Total Deck Thickness" should be changed to something like "Base Deck Thickness" or "Stage 1 Deck Thickness" or similar.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/10/2006 1:18:43 PM

The integral wearing surface is computed by subtracting the structural thickness from the total deck thickness.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/10/2006 2:07:37 PM

The intent of the three deck thickness attributes is as follows:

Wearing surface - the thickness of a non-structural overlay

Total Thickness - the total thickness of the deck

Structural thickness - the total thickness minus a thickness to account for sacrificial wearing - so the integral wearing surface is the difference between total deck thickness and structural thickness.


The export for StdEngine was developed based on these thicknesses.


In order for the StdEngine to handle the situation described above it should be enhanced to accept the structural thickness (like BRASS) and it would have to allow the structural thickness to be greater than the total thickness.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:37:40 PM

I had entered a duplicate of this incident (#7629)

We have a very similar situation. Every structure that has a silica fume overlay (SFO) in our database will not run in VSE for this reason. Here is how we come up with our thicknesses.

Deck total thickness = 170 mm

SFO = 40 mm

Therefore 170 +40 210 mm

Structural Thickness = 210 – 15 wear = 195 mm



FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, November 03, 2006 10:36:37 AM

Why not come up with a work around or way this can be handled in the migration. We have 1,112 current structures with Silica Fume Overlays (SFO) that would have to be edited to comply with VSE input.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/3/2006 2:41:25 PM

The data entered into Virtis/Opis should describe the bridge. It should not be for a particular engine. If you have massaged data to get results you want ffrom a particular engine then you have to accept that it may not work for another engine.

Why isn't the total deck thickness 210 and the structural thickness 195? I still don't understand how or why the structural thickness can be greater than the total. Is there something going on here with when the loads are applied that forces you to di this way?


I think this is a problem for StdEngine because the input does not include structural thickness. If you want StdEngine to work for this situation (Total < Structural) we need to modify the input commands and the internal computations.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/3/2006 3:05:51 PM

Neither engine handles this scenario correctly.


For BRASS: You specify the load due to SFO as DL2 but the structural properties for DL2 already include the thickness - not exactly correct but maybe acceptable.


You can't use StdEngine at this time because the input to the engine is total thickness and sacrificial thickness (not structural thickness). The StdEngine export defines the total thickness as 7" (which isn't what you want) and computes the sacrificial thickness by subtracting the structural thickness from the total thickness which is negative for this case and is not allowed to be negative so it aborts.


I think if you want to be able to analyze this situation Virtis, BRASS and StdEngine need to be modified.


Incident 7608   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Truss-suggestion: add ability to code "I" shaped truss members as built up sections

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 9/13/2006 4:55:56 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:55:57 PM

In order to enter welded “I” shapes as truss members users must …

1. Define them as NonDetailed sections

or…

2. Enter them as Steel Beam I Shapes for the Bridge Workspace and then define them as rolled sections

It would be better if they could be directly entered by coding them something like a built-up truss member section.


Incident 7626   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add "OK/Next" button to component defintions windows to speed up input

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 9/21/2006 3:42:54 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:42:54 AM

Utah DOT had the following suggestion for an input enhancement:

When entering components such as bar mark definitions, shear reinforcement definitions, stiffener definitions, etc, the input would go faster if these windows contained another button called "OK/Next", which would OK the window that is open (close and save data to memory) and then open a new window for the next definition and already be populated with the content from the previous window.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/23/2007 9:44:01 AM

Sounds like a wizard to me. Probably a good idea.


Incident 7672   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Traffic Tab Missing Design ADT Field

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/20/2006 2:27:35 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, October 20, 2006 10:27:36 AM

On the traffic tab we have ADT which is used to calculate the Recent ADTT.

What we are missing is the “Design” ADT which would be used to calculate the Design ADTT.

I think all the fatigue calc’s in LRFD are based on Design ADTT and not Recent ADTT.

What we have right now, the designer has to go find the design ADT and do the calc’s to populate the field.

If this field isn’t populated, ( I think) the LRFD code uses the maximum of 20,000?


FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/23/2006 11:40:32 AM

Changed to Support since this data was implemented for version 5.4. Data was reviewed and tested for version 5.4 so changing this to an enhancement request.


FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:52:33 AM

Can we at least add this to the help to give designers direction on how to calulate this?


Incident 7673   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Traffic Tab Missing Truck Fraction Multiplier

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/20/2006 2:28:07 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, October 20, 2006 10:28:07 AM

When following the LFRD code we need to look at the # of trucks going one direction. If we have an interstate or other multi-laned divided travelway, of lets say 3 or more lanes going in one direction. We have % of trucks going in one direction but according to table 3.6.1.4.2-1 we are to use a multiplier of 0.80 to reduce the % of trucks in a single lane.


I think this field should have been included.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/23/2006 11:37:32 AM

Changed to Support since this data was implemented for version 5.4. Data was reviewed and tested for version 5.4 so changing this to an enhancement request.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:10/23/2006 11:40:00 AM



FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:50:56 AM

Can we at least add this to the help to give designers direction?


Incident 7680   

Folder /Support Center

Subject The name of the engine files created by NSG analysis may need to append to the EngineFiles.LST.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 10/26/2006 3:25:27 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:hlee DATE:10/26/2006 10:23:34 AM

For a standard analysis, the engine will create Plate_Girder.dat, Plate_Girder.log, and Plate_Girder.OUT.

For a NSG analysis, the engine will create Plate_Girder - NSG_(Centered)_-_ADJ_(None).dat, Plate_Girder - NSG_(Centered)_-_ADJ_(None), and Plate_Girder - NSG_(Centered)_-_ADJ_(None).OUT.


Since the name of the files created by NSG analysis (Plate_Girder - NSG_(Centered)_-_ADJ_(None)) is different than standard analysis (Plate_Girder), there may have 2 set of engine files in the same folder. The EngineFiles.LST should also have 2 set of engine files so the files can be properly deleted.


Is there a reason why the name of the files created by NSG analysis is different than standard analysis? Both the file deletion process and view latest analysis output window use EngineFiles.LST. There will be a problem if the names are different.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/26/2006 2:07:43 PM

The NSG can be run for multiple paths per analysis. Filenames distinguish the path evaluated.


FROM:hlee DATE:10/26/2006 3:39:01 PM

The EngineFiles.LST file, view latest analysis output window, and the file deletion process need to be enhanced to handle different file names.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/27/2006 8:20:15 AM

When this window and mechanism was designed and implemented the intent was to only work with files associated with the latest analysis. The process needs to be reviewed and possibly modified if we want it to work for multiple analysis events.


FROM:jduray DATE:12/13/2007 11:07:39 AM

Discussed with TAG...delete the files that are listed in the LST file and the LST file prior to an analysis.


Incident 7682   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Text Overwritten in Rebar Schematic

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/27/2006 2:04:16 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, October 27, 2006 10:04:16 AM

In the schematic of the rebar, look in the upper left corner. The text is being overwritten, even at 400% zoom


FROM:jduray DATE:10/27/2006 11:13:18 AM

In resolving this situation it would be useful to know if this is this new to 5.5 so we know if we broke something since the last release.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/27/2006 11:53:59 AM

We need to determine if this overlap is occurring because it is a situation for placement that was not included in the design/implementation or a bug in the code that should handle this situation.


FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, October 27, 2006 12:00:23 PM

Sorry – I can’t tell if this was prior problem. In 5.4 the rebar was displayed in layers. Now in 5.5 beta 6 the layer display is partially corrected bunching all the text together.


FROM:jihnat DATE:10/31/2006 8:16:21 AM

You can type in a higher zoom than what's in the droplist, say 600 or 800.


FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:39:12 AM

At a 500% typed in zoom esolution the text isn't overwritting itself.


FROM:jduray DATE:11/2/2006 7:46:12 AM

Significantly more logic is required in the code to check for overlapping objects. Therefore I'm changing this to an enhancement.


FROM:bmccaffrey DATE:Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:24:02 AM


This is a programmers oversight, not an enhancement. I'm putting this on the 'bug' list. Fixing a display glitch is not an enhancement.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/23/2007 10:01:17 AM

It is not a display glitch. The schematics do not contain logic for detecting overlapping text and repositioning the text to avoid overlaps.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:16:28 PM

The attached bridge and schematic shows three lines of text on top of each other. I zoomed it to 1000% (one thousand percent) and it didn’t change anything (just made it big and wrong).

The line on the right in the schematic should read:

S1 Right

S2 Right

S3 Right


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/10/2009 10:28:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG comment: See if moving bar mark text to the dimension line helps.


Incident 7688   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Truss LL distribution factor

Status Suspended

Submitted By McCaffrey, Brian

Date Submitted 11/1/2006 4:14:46 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:bmccaffrey DATE:Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:14:46 PM


It would be beneficial at some point for the truss LLDF to be calculated based on the geometry of the floor-system similar to how a through-girder LLDF is calculated via the GUI?


Incident 7715   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Phi Factor for P/S Negative Moment Capacity

Status Suspended

Submitted By Koenig, David

Date Submitted 12/5/2006 8:03:22 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:dkoenig DATE:Tuesday, December 05, 2006 3:03:22 PM

We stumbled onto and issue about what Virtis is using for the phi factor in the check of negative moment capacity at the intermediate supports on continuous P/S bridges. Based on our review of some structures, Virtis is exporting a phi factor of 0.90 to BRASS for it to do the analysis. If you look at the standard AASHTO factor libraries in Virtis, this is what it has as the phi factor for flexural capacity of nonprestressed elements. We have always used a phi factor of 1.0 for design of the negative moment steel. We have reviewed some PCA examples, and they do it the same way.


In AASHTO, Article 9.7.2.3 states that negative moment reinforcement should be designed with the load factors in accordance with Article 9.14. In Article 9.14, it specifies a phi factor of 1.0 for factory produced prestressed concrete members. Based on these two articles, it is our opinion that AASHTO is clearly specifying to use the phi factor of 1.0 for negative moment checks at the piers on continuous P/S structures and that the phi factor of 0.90 in the standard library is incorrect. We would request that this issue be reviewed and the standard library updated. If you don't agree with our interpretation, then what articles in AASHTO are being used to make the decision that a phi of 0.90 is required for the negative moment check? We are aware that you can create your own factors in the library to remedy this issue. However, if the standard library factors are not accurately depicting what AASHTO specifies, then they need to be updated.


FROM:hlee DATE:Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:16:52 PM


FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/6/2006 2:40:56 PM

Researching these factors.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:12/11/2006 3:04:35 PM

Looks like we used the default value that BRASS uses when we originally populated the database (10 years ago!). WYDOT has been contacted to see if there is a spec to back up this value. Otherwise based on my review of the spec we should change this value to 1.0


FROM:hlathia DATE:Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:31:05 PM

Virtis StdEngine uses a Phi value of 0.90 (hard coded ) to calculate moment strength of a section subject to negative flexure. I am not sure if the Phi value of 1.0 is correct since the section at pier is a reinforced concrete section and not a prestressed concrete section.



FROM:dkoenig DATE:Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:15:14 PM

The AASHTO articles that I reference above basically direct you towards using a phi value of 1.0 for checking negative moment steel. The people that I have talked with within MoDOT say that this is the practice because a moment failure at the pier will typically be caused by crushing of the precast prestressed beam instead of a yielding failure of the negative moment steel.


FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:54:48 PM

I contacted WYDOT regarding the 0.9 default phi factor. They nor I can find any spec reference to support using 0.9 vs. 1.0. The value passed to BRASS comes directly from the factors in the library or overridden by the user, so no export changes are necessary.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:5/14/2007 10:15:42 AM

Email that was sent to the Superstructure TAG for guidance on addressing this incident:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

We are investigating Incident 7715 and would like to get some guidance from you and/or the TAG. This incident was requested by David Koenig of Missouri regarding the prestressed concrete phi factor for flexure in non-prestressed components (like in the negative moment region at a pier) that we deliver in the Virtis Library LFD Factors.


The Virtis Library LFD Factors that we deliver have this value set to 0.9. David is requesting that this value should actually be 1.0 based on the following articles:


Article 9.7.2.3.1 of the Standard Spec is as follows:

"Negative moment reinforcement shall be proportioned by strength design with load factors in accordance with Article 9.14."


Article 9.14 is as follows:

"... The following strength capacity reduction factors shall be used:

For factory produced precast prestressed concrete members phi = 1.0"


In spite of the wording of these articles, we feel that the phi factor should remain as 0.9 since the section at a pier made continuous for live load is a cast-in-place reinforced concrete section. The cast-in-place concrete has more uncertainty in the rebar placement, curing, etc. than a factory produced p/s member so we feel the capacity should be reduced by 0.9 as per Article 8.16.1.2.2 for reinforced concrete.


A workaround for David is to create an Agency set of LFD Factors with this phi factor set to 1.0 and then set that Agency factor as the default factor on the System Defaults window.


Please let us know how you would like us to address his request.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Response received from Brian McCaffrey:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

We all agree with leaving the factor at 0.9 and letting the users adjust their agency library. We will probally add this to the short list anyway and put it up for vote.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Incident 7718   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Superstructure Definition Wizard Enhancements

Status Suspended

Submitted By Goodrich, Brian

Date Submitted 12/6/2006 7:32:53 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:33:03 PM

Users at the New Mexico training made suggestions regarding the structure definition wizard.

1. Add an option for specifying a non-composite structure, i.e., no shear connectors at all.

2. Another suggestion was having the wizard calculate the effective flange width when the structure definition is finished rather than having to visit the Deck Profile window to select the Compute button.


Incident 7761   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Prestressed Concrete I-Beam Wheel Distribution Factor Computation Problem

Status Assigned

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 1/9/2007 10:12:13 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:12:17 PM


In the attached file, w/prestressed I-beams, when attempting to compute the Wheel Distribution Factor the following error is produced unless the adjacent Member Alternative(s) has(have) both “Existing” and “Current” checked (under the Member definition). This did not occur in v. 5.4.0 and we are not aware of the problem existing in the v. 5.5.0 Beta builds. Also, it does not occur with steel beam member alternatives.


"Beam shapes are not assigned to adjacent member alternatives! Virtis cannot determine if spread or adjacent beams exist and cannot compute the live load distribution factors!"


FROM:jduray DATE:Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:54:59 AM


FROM:kkennelly DATE:1/10/2007 2:22:32 PM

The warning message is new to version 5.5 but it was present in all of the 5.5 beta builds. This warning was added in response to incident 7219. As per that incident Virtis was previously computing the DF for a ps beam by always using the Spread Box equations when the adjacent mbr alts didn't have beam shapes assigned to them. (Incident 7258 is the same as 7219 and was submitted by a user)


This message is only issued for prestressed concrete beams. We issue it for all types of PS beams, not just boxes, so we can determine if Article 3.23.4 should be used since Virtis allows PS I's and Tees to be adjacent deck beams.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:1/10/2007 2:46:52 PM



FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Friday, January 12, 2007 11:42:30 AM


But why do both Existing and Current boxes need to be checked? It seems like this warning should only be produced when the Current box is not checked. It is my understanding that when the Existing box is not checked (and Current is checked), it indicates that a beam shape is assigned but that it is not to be analyzed.


FROM:hlee DATE:1/16/2007 3:23:36 PM

The warning message will only be produced when the Existing box is not checked in adjacent beam(s). The distribution factor computation is looking for existing adjacent member(s). The Current box represents the current alternative being modified or reviewed by user. The Current box is used for drawing the schematics.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:1/17/2007 3:25:05 PM

Need to discuss with Jim before we implement any changes. 2 possible solutions:


1. Workaround for user is to mark all of the beams as existing, use the Compute button to compute DF's and then uncheck the beams he doesn't want analyzed in a batch analysis before the bridge is saved. (User must be doing this unchecking of mbr alts anyway because the first mbr alt is always set to Existing when it is created.)


2. Or we can change the code to first check if the adjacent mbr alts are marked as Existing. If it is, use the Existing mbr alt for the DF calcs. If it is not then check if the adjacent mbr alt is marked as Current. If it is, use the Current alt for DF calcs. If it is not, then issue message that we can't compute DF's. Note that we'll have to make the same change on the Deck Profile: Compute Eff Flange Width button.


FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:47:30 PM


Krisha,


My consultant had originally reported this to me and prepared a response to Herman's 1/16 response and before your 1/17 reponse. It is as follows:


First, the incidents (7219 & 7258) that led to this are both with regard to box beams and the problem with determining whether they are “side-by-side” or “spread”. Although kkennelly stated in the 1/10/07 response, “Virtis allows PS I’s and Tee’s to be adjacent deck beams, according to AASHTO (3.23.4) the kinds of beams that this might apply to are: channel beams, single-/multi-stemmed tee beams and box beams. I-beams are not indicated and could not practically compose an adjacent deck-beam type structure. Therefore, the computation of the wheel distribution factor (“DF” hereafter) for prestressed concrete I-beams should not be affected by the fix. The DF for PS I-beams is clearly stated under AASHTO Std. Specs. Table 3.23.1 and is unaffected by the nature of the flanking beam(s).


Second, the nature of the flanking/adjacent beam(s) should be based on which Member Alternative has the Current box checked, not the Existing box. This would be consistent with whether the computation for Deck Profile is allowed. In that case it is the converse of how the DF computation is done. In practice, these two boxes work thus:

•Existing selected/Current selected => member is present in the model and is to be included in batch analyses

•Existing not selected/Current selected => member is present in the model and is not to be included in batch analyses

•Existing selected/Current not selected => ??

•Neither Existing or Current selected => a member alternative that is desired to be saved but does not actually exist. (It should be stated that, in practice, the instance of multiple Member Alternatives under a Member permanently is extremely rare, probably fewer than 5 of the 2600 bridges entered by IL DOT.)


In the 1/16/07 response hlee stated that the problem only happens “when the Existing box is not checked”. That creates a major problem! In by far the majority of cases, the outside beam and other beams that do not control the rating of the Superstructure Definition are to be left out of batch analysis (“Existing” box not checked). Therefore, the user is now forced to check the box, then go to the next member and set it up, running the DF computation, then go back and uncheck it. The same procedure must be performed for all the other members in the Superstructure Definition that will, by inspection, not control the rating. This has potential to significantly increase the time required to set up a bridge model for prestressed members. The wheel DF computation should be like the Deck Profile computation, which is based on the members that show in the schematic view (Current box selected).


(Tim A.) When I showed him the two possible solutions that you had proposed in your 1/17 response, he felt that the first option wouldn't work for the reason stated above He agreed with the second option, but noted that none of this should apply to I beams for the reasons stated above.



FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:43:17 PM


Has there been any movement on this issue? Thanks.


Incident 7787   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Generic Section Composer for Opis & Virtis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Hasan, Mac

Date Submitted 1/20/2007 8:03:51 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:mhasan DATE:Saturday, January 20, 2007 3:03:52 PM

Need a generic section composer for validation purposes (drawing capability using the mouse and grids).


FROM:jduray DATE:1/22/2007 7:48:12 AM

WE will need a more detailed description so we can prepare a rough cost estimate and so it can be explained to the users and TF.


FROM:mhasan DATE:Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:15:43 PM

Primarily it can be used for computation of generic section properties that are not supported by Opis/Virtis. Also, it can be used for validation of section properties computed by different engines. Our current process for creating non-standard sections is template dependent and non-generic.


Users should be able to select a standard section from the library or create a non-standard section preferably using grids into the section interface window and subsequently add a haunch, deck and re-bars by use of the mouse. The rectangular co-ordinate system will be considered at this time.


Finally, it can be integrated into Opis/Virtis for use by it's members.


Incident 7804   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Std Engine: Support harped and straight debonded strand configuration.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 1/26/2007 1:46:18 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:hlee DATE:1/26/2007 8:47:02 AM


Incident 7805   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Std Engine: Support single lane loaded option for each vehicle.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 1/26/2007 2:00:54 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description


Incident 7846   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Create a Sample DB TAG

Status On Hold

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/19/2007 5:44:38 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, February 19, 2007 12:44:38 PM

We have a tutorial for RC Frame structures (x-section) but we don’t have an example structure in our delivered database. We should provide one, x-section and schedule based.


Incident 7867   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Low rating factor at CL bearing of PS beam using VSE

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 2/27/2007 10:16:14 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Tuesday, February 27, 2007 5:16:14 PM


In the subject example, PSRtgProb-VSE (0930021).xml, a 4-Span continuous composite PS Bulb-Tee beam, the rating factor values at 0.75’ of Span 3 are less than half of the values @ CL of pier w/moment strength controlling. It would seem that the rating factors should be nearly the same or slightly higher.


SPAN 3

=======

MOMENT STRENGTH RATING FACTORS

X POSITIVE NEGATIVE IR OR

0.00 976.9 -5040.8 1.55 U 2.59 U

0.75 439.8 -5040.8 0.73 U 1.22 U

4.15 5126.8 -5040.8 2.36 U 3.94 U


FROM:hlee DATE:3/1/2007 8:48:54 AM

I'm not able to reproduce above low rating factor values at 0.75’ of Span 3. I tried both the default tolerances and the tolerance settings listed in Incident 7284. Belows is the output from both runs.


SPAN 3

=======

MOMENT STRENGTH RATING FACTORS

X POSITIVE NEGATIVE IR OR

0.00 976.9 -5040.8 1.57 U 2.61 U

0.75 439.8 -5040.8 1.66 U 2.78 U

4.15 5139.2 -5040.8 2.17 U 3.63 U


Tim, could you try to see whether you can reproduce those values at 0.75' of Span 3? If yes, please attach the generated 72__PS_Bulb-Tee dat, log, and out files to this incident.


FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 7/11/2008 10:33:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Herman, I had my consultant look at this. here is his response:


I checked it out in v. 6.0 (Beta 4) and got essentially the same results. Pos. moment strength is radically less at the bearing centerline than it is at the pier centerline only 9" away. And the rating factor is much less, It should be almost the same. The example is for lane loading, "SP-1" I think.


I have attached the revised problem report, the v.6.0(Beta4) export file and the three requested output files.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/14/2010 4:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I'm able to reproduce the issue in 6.1 Release. Attached Virtis Std Engine input and output files (61-72__PS_Bulb-Tee).

Hasmukh, please investigate the reported positive moment strength at Span 3 0.75'.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 3/14/2010 9:31:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The positive moment strength at 0.75' in Span is much less because it is reduced by a reduction factor k.

Virtis Std Engine uses flexural strength reduction factor k (AASHTO Manual 6.6.3.3) when Phi*Mn is less than 1.2 times the cracking moment M*cr. If a rating agency decides not to use provision of this reduction factor, then the rating factor should be calculated using the moment strength without a reduction factor. Also see incident 9615. Providing a user option (an enhancement) to use or not to use this reduction in strength will resolve this issue.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/15/2010 8:11:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Duplicate of Incident 9615.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 3/15/2010 12:12:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time

After looking at this issue further, I inquired with PennDOT if their PSLRFD program checks for cracking moment strength at center line of bearing. I got the following response:


PSLRFD does not compute a Mcr between the simple support locations. See the output below. Also, the program only computes and reports the required positive moment connection reinforcement area. It does not use this steel for any other calculations. It is only computed for the continuous only analysis option.


I recommend that Virtis Std Engine should not compute Mcr and use the strength reduction factor k between the bearing lines at piers. This would be an enhancement to Virtis Std Engine.


Incident 7907   

Folder /Support Center

Subject VSE apparently does not do "ignore positive moment at supports..." for continuous PS beams

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 3/23/2007 9:08:32 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Friday, March 23, 2007 5:08:32 PM

In the subject example, VSEWontIgnorePosMomatSupport.xml, a 3-span continuous PS I-beam bridge, we're trying to analyze the bridge, ignoring the positive moment at the supports (see Member Alternative/Beam Details/Continuity Diaphragm tab). This works for BRASS but not when utilizing the Virtis Standard Engine. Perhaps some documentation warning the user displayed near the button that makes the selection. Of course, we would prefer to make it function with VSE.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/26/2007 12:51:07 PM

Let's see what it would take to modify VSE to handle this.


FROM:hlee DATE:3/30/2007 1:36:46 PM

Virtis Std Engine Help states that "Ignore positive moment at supports in ratings" is not used by Virtis Std. We use Engine Help to document engine specific information.



FROM:hlathia DATE:Monday, April 02, 2007 10:43:09 AM

This will be added to the VSE enhancement list.


Incident 7925   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Difference between load rating summary and detailed rating results

Status Suspended

Submitted By Curtis, Beckie

Date Submitted 4/18/2007 4:26:34 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:rcurtis DATE:Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:26:34 PM

In the following bridge, I ran G1 and then generated a report. As you can see, the summary load ratings differ dramatically from the detailed rating results portion.



FROM:rcurtis DATE:Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:06:14 PM

I am attaching another bridge with a similar problem. See structure "Spans 1-3 SD". I am also attaching a pdf of the Brass and Virtis input. The Brass input seems to match the detailed rating results portion more accurately than the summary load rating from Virtis.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/25/2007 8:43:20 AM

May - please investigate and let me or Krisha know what you find.


FROM:xli DATE:4/25/2007 9:01:51 AM

Emailed Beckie:


Hi Beckie,

I've investigated incident 7925 you submitted on 4/18.


Detailed rating results In LFD report match that in Virtis Standard Engine output file. If the section is compact, detailed rating result matches compact rating factor of the section in Virtis Standard Engine output file. If the section is non-compact, detailed rating result matches non-compact rating factor of the section in Virtis Standard Engine output file.

For example,

G1, Span1, 31.67',

Detailed rating results In LFD report: IR = 1.699, OR =2.831

Virtis Standard Engine output file: Non-Compact factor IR = 1.16, OR =1.93 , Compact factor IR = 1.70, OR =2.83

Section is compact, so detailed rating results In LFD report matches Compact factors Virtis Standard Engine output file.

G1, Span1, 132.48',

Detailed rating results In LFD report: IR = 1.630, OR =2.717

Virtis Standard Engine output file: Non-Compact factor IR = 1.63, OR =2.72, Compact factor IR = NA, OR = NA

Section is non-compact, so detailed rating results In LFD report matches Non-Compact factors Virtis Standard Engine output file.


Virtis Standard Engine assumes that the plastic moment capacity can only be used for the calculation of ratings if all sections over the entire length of the member (whether composite or non-composite) qualify as compact sections (Virtis Std User Manual 3.9.1.1 page 3-56).


Because there are non-compact sections over the girder we analyzed, Virtis Standard Engine can only use non-compact moment capacity for the calculation of ratings based on above assumption. In the summary rating results, non-compact rating factors are reported.

Summary rating results: IR = 1.160, OR =1.934

Virtis Standard Engine output file: Non-Compact factor IR = 1.16, OR =1.93


So the difference between load rating summary and detailed rating results is due to the Virtis Standard Engine assumption stated above.


Please let me know if you have additional questions.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:5/21/2007 12:44:33 PM

Enhancement is to add a note in the report if the compact or non-compact rating factor is being printed out.


Incident 7960   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Additional fields in Bridge Explorer

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 6/12/2007 9:49:51 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:49:51 PM


Incident 2876 would be a duplicate of this incident. I note that it has been suspended since 2000, and was wondering what it would take to add additional fields to Bridge Explorer? In addition to the fields Todd proposed, I also feel there should be a field for analyst identification in order to note who is entering these in and modifying them.


Would this be a great undertaking?


FROM:jduray DATE:6/15/2007 7:09:30 AM

The Bridge Explorer currently get its data from a couple tables. In order to display the name of the person who last modified a component in a bridge would require a query that would be rather slow. However, we could add a new colukmn to the abw_bridge table that stores the id of that person and then it would be very quick. The development effort (for just this request) is in the small category.


Work tasks:

add new column to db

modify the Save function for the BWS to update the new column with the current user id (may want a timestamp too)

modify the report tool

modify the Find Bridge dialog

modify the Bridge Explorer to display

modify the Domain, Db, De, Dm


Incident 7969   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Std Engine: Support both harped strand configuration and debonded strand configuration in multi-span continuous structure

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 6/22/2007 12:54:18 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:hlathia DATE:Friday, June 22, 2007 11:53:35 AM

VSE prints an error message when some spans have harped strands and some spans have debonded strands in a multi-span continuous prestressed concrete structure. See the attached input and output files for a VSE run. Enhance VSE to allow the above configuration. The scope of this enhancement will be limited each span having the same type of strand configuration (all straight, straight with harped or straight with debonded). A span having both the harped and the debonded strands in the same beam is a separate enhancement (see VI7804)


FROM:hlee DATE:7/23/2007 1:49:50 PM

This incident describes the situation that some spans are harped and some spans are debonded.

Incident 7804 describes the situation that harped and debonded strands are in the same span.


Incident 7974   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Rating Method selected for Prestressed

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/26/2007 12:13:58 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:13:59 AM

Using our delivered “in the can” Example 7

In the Analysis Settings GUI I selected ASD as the Rating Method

After running a rating using the BRASS Engine

The Rating Results Summary Report still states LFD in the Design Method column.


If I where to rate our delivered “in the can” TrainingBridge3 the same way, the Design Method column says ASD.


FROM:hlee DATE:6/26/2007 8:58:32 AM

This issue is a duplicate of Incident 3568.


FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, June 29, 2007 12:44:12 PM

I knew that BRASS didn't do ASD and only did LFD. My thinking was that the process should have stopped instead of letting the user think they where getting ASD results. If they don't check warning messages or catch it in the output, they may still think they are getting ASD. It would be nice if it stopped and forced the user to select LFD.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/2/2007 9:27:25 AM

I think we should remove "BRASS ASD" from ASD Analysis Module for new prestressed member alternative. For existing prestressed member alternative, BRASS export should stop and inform the user.


FROM:hlee DATE:9/4/2007 1:34:35 PM

Changed Category to Enhancement. Enhancement of BRASS export to detect and stop ASD rating of prestressed member. Currently, BRASS will switch to do LFD rating with the following message in the analysis log.


WARNING (High):

The ASD method is not applicable for prestress structures.

Therefore, an LFD analysis will be performed by BRASS.

Refer to Section 6.6.2.5 of the Manual for Condition

Evaluation of Bridges for details.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/12/2010 1:12:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Related to Incident 9719.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/2/2012 2:21:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Task Force direction (Jan. 2012 TF Meeting): Category changed from Enhancement to Maintenance.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/10/2013 2:16:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time

When using AASHTO ASD to rate PS girders, the engine will warn the user with the following message.


================================================================

Warning - As per MBE Article 6B.6.2.5, rating of prestressed members should be by Load Factor Method,

not Allowable Stress Method. Rating will continue using the Load Factor Method!

================================================================


There are two ways to specify ASD as the Rating Method.

1. Select ASD in the Analysis Settings window.

2. Select Member Alternative in the Analysis Settings window and set the Default rating method in the member alternative to ASD. If we stop the analysis and force the user to switch to LFD, the user will need to switch the Default rating method to LFD for all the member alternatives. Having the Member Alternative as the Rating Method in the Analysis Settings window allows user to mix rating methods in a batch analysis.


Dean, please let us know your comments. Thanks.


FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 6/19/2013 5:00:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I agree with your comment on 7/2/2007


Incident 7976   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject As Requested in Rating Analysis Results

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/26/2007 1:38:35 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:38:35 AM

Being we are messing with the Rating Results report in Beta 3 – I would sure like to see the Impact and Lane columns populated with actual data.

As Requested isn’t very useful, especially if someone besides the report creator is reading it.


I would like to see the Impact column populated with – with or without impact or % impact and the Lane column with single or Multi-Lane. Now this would truly make this report meaningful and useful.


FROM:mordoobadi DATE:9/6/2007 9:03:34 AM

The information is not readily available.

Incident Category changed to Enhancement.


FROM:hlee DATE:9/13/2007 1:35:50 PM

Project changed to Support Center.


Incident 7991   

Folder /Support Center

Subject NSG suggestion - disable checkbox requirement for analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 6/29/2007 4:18:09 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Friday, June 29, 2007 12:18:10 PM


I'm not suure how much of an effort it would be to fix this, but I don't think that a user should be required to go into each member for each structure that s/he wants analyzed for NSG and have to check both the “Existing” and “Current” boxes. First of all, selecting only "Current" is the normal way of selecting members to be analyzed for standard linear analysis. Nearly all of our bridge models (2700+) are entered so that only the critical members remain active for routine analyses. To have to manually change them so that NSG may be run is time consuming and also results in substantial and undesirable increases in the time to perform daily routine analyses of groups of bridges on requested overweight permit routes. I suggest that the program override the "Current" & "Existing" checkboxes (leaving them be) and just do the analysis to get a successful run.


FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Friday, June 29, 2007 2:22:36 PM


Sorry, I really should put in a more descriptive title for this incident and 7992. Any way to alter the subject to read "NSG suggestion - disable checkbox requirement for analysis"


FROM:jduray DATE:7/2/2007 4:05:53 PM

The "Existing" is required for processing member alternatives if you select any object above the member alternative (structure def, structure, structure alt , bridge alt or the bridge). That is the analysis requirement for system definitions and is not new to NSG. "Current" has nothing to do with identifying the member alt to be analyzed. "Current" is used to select the member alt to be drawn in the schematics.


The processing could be changed to to use the only member alt for a member is there is only one so existing does not have to checked by the user. This would apply to the BWS if a structure def, structure, structure alt , bridge alt or the bridge is the slected object. It souel als apply to rating from the bridge explorer.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/2/2007 4:11:34 PM

The following is from the online help:


Existing

Check the box next to the name of the member alternative that represents the existing member. The existing member alternative is selected for analysis during a batch analysis process. Only one member alternative may be selected as existing. The member alternative selected as "Existing" displays in the Bridge Workspace tree with a (E) following the name.


Current

Check the box next to the name of the member alternative that represents the current alternative being modified or reviewed. The schematics draw the alternative marked as current. Only one member alternative is allowed to be the current alternative, but the current alternative does not need to be the same alternative as the alternative selected as existing. The member alternative selected as "Current" displays in the Bridge Workspace tree with a (C) following the name.




FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Monday, July 02, 2007 5:10:31 PM


Jim, I understand what you are saying, and this is fine for a normal analysis. We use "existing" to only analyze the members we are interested in and to cut down on analysis time because of redundancy. For a normal rating, this is prefered. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, ALL the members need to be checked "existing" to run a NSG analysis. If I'm doing a overweight analysis for 300 bridges, I would prefer not to go into each structure and check all the check boxes, run the analysis, and then go in and undo everything to get it back to normal. I just want all the boxes "checked" during NSG, so is it possible to code the program to think that all the boxes for the structures selected are checked during a NSG analysis even though in reality they are not? This would be during a NSG analysis only.


FROM:jduray DATE:7/23/2007 10:55:37 AM

Yes, all members must have a mbr alt marked existing in order to do a NSG analysis. Otherwise we don't know which mbr alt to use (if there are more than one). We could modify so if there is only one mbr alt we could use it even if it isnot marked as existing. The problem I have with this approach is we are assuming the unmarked alt is correct and complete. So changing to match your business process may not work for others. It would take a few hours to make the change you are requesting and then some testing by us and the TAG so it is not a big deal. The TF needs to authorize the change.


Incident 8004   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Copy Member Alternative - doesn't capture Member loads

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 7/11/2007 4:42:15 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:tthompson DATE:Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:42:30 PM

I had a 5 girder (Steel) bridge with G1 and G2 defined. With G3, G4, and G5 linked.

We had an overheight hit, so I decided to unlink G3, G4, G5.

I then copied G1 member alt to G5. And copied G2 to G3 and G4.


Everything looked ok - EXCEPT that the member loads (DC1) were NOT copied along with the rest of the member alternative data.


This may or may not be related to VI 7996.


But it is very troubling when you do a copy and NOT all of it copies over. COPY is one of the most powerful features of the application, but if one can not trust it - we have serious issues.


FROM:hlee DATE:7/12/2007 8:52:51 AM

Making a copy of a member alternative will copy all the data belong to that member alternative. Member Loads sits above MEMBER ALTERNATIVES in the Bridge Workspace tree. Member Loads belongs to the member, not the member alternative. That's why Member Loads will not get copied when you copy member alternative. Incident 7996 describes a member linking problem in NSG analysis. Linking member is at the member level; all data (including Member Loads) below the member should be linked.



FROM:tthompson DATE:Monday, July 16, 2007 9:01:35 AM

Ok.


Maybe need to revise this to an enhancement to COPY member loads.


FROM:jduray DATE:Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:19:05 PM


Incident 8039   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement Request - Cover Plates with Schedule Based input - steel girders

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 7/27/2007 3:15:38 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:tthompson DATE:Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15:44 AM

I can't seem to find an enhancement on this, and it probably should be.


I don't see where you can add a coverplate on a steel plate girder that is defined using schedule based. You can add coverplates if it is defined as Cross Section Based. If we really want to promote schedule based for folks, we need to add all the capabilites that Cross Section based offer.


Or am I just missing where cover plates can be added on schedule based?


FROM:tthompson DATE:Friday, July 27, 2007 11:21:45 AM


FROM:jduray DATE:7/31/2007 12:49:19 PM

Cover plates on welded plate girders is not supported so this would be an enhancement as you suggest.


Incident 8110   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Library tree items

Status Suspended

Submitted By Waheed, Amjad

Date Submitted 8/28/2007 4:21:50 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM:awaheed DATE:Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:21:50 PM

Library items in the tree view are not sorted alphabetically. If they are sorted alphabetically by default, it would make the search easier and quicker.


Incident 8117   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Files written by Virtis/Opis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ordoobadi, Mehrdad

Date Submitted 8/31/2007 2:45:46 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:mordoobadi DATE:8/31/2007 9:53:42 AM

This issue came up in the Mass Highway user training last year.


One of the Mass Highway IT personnel indicated that it takes so much effort to maintain Virtis/Opis software on client machines in their organization.


One of the problems that he mentioned was that their users normally have limited privileges on their machines and they cannot write to the folders under Program Files, but Virtis/Opis writes to folders in the Program Files/VirtisOpis folder. He suggested that Virtis/Opis should follow the Windows Logo program guidelines. The windows logo program suggests that the files written by an application should not be written to the program files folder instead they should be written to the user's My Documents folder. (e.g. "My Documents\Virtis Opis" folder)


This folder should probably be configurable so that it defaults to My Documents\Virtis Opis and can be changed to something else if needed. This option may be configured within Virtis/Opis installation or in User preferences or both.


Incident 8120   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Report wish list for LRFD reports

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 9/5/2007 5:40:09 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:9/5/2007 1:42:55 PM

Submitted via email on behalf of Darren Kemna, Missouri:


Steel Wish List.

-Moments at field splices. DL breakdown. Positive and negative LL moments. Basically, components required for splice design.

-Fatigue Detail stress checks. Currently POI's are required at diaphragms and splices. Report stress demand, resistance and design ratios.

I know the above two requests are difficult due to POI entry requirements, but they should be included for steel design programs.



Prestress Reports

I would like to see reports for shear design that give steel area provided and required at tenth points and user POIs. A report would be needed for vertical shear, interface shear, and longitudinal reinforcement.

Also, I would like to see the flexural strength report change (similar to steel) so that Mu, Mr, and DR are reported at tenth points.


Incident 8130   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Virtis Truss - Unsupported member cross section

Status Suspended

Submitted By Bhanushali, Girish

Date Submitted 9/7/2007 1:15:21 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:gbhanushali DATE:9/7/2007 9:12:56 AM

While at PUG '07 Brian Mccaffrey requested to see if we can support the truss member cross section that has only two angles back to back forming a T.


Incident 8143   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject GFS Girder Member Schematic Shows Stringer Diaphragms

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 9/12/2007 6:55:34 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:55:34 PM


It appears that in the schematic view of the main Girder Member of a Girder-Floorbeam-Stringer system bridge, the diaphragms for the stringers are indicated. Since these diaphragms only affect the stringers and not the main girders, we don't feel that they should be shown in the Girder Member schematic. It lends to confusion in the diagram.


FROM:jduray DATE:9/13/2007 11:18:25 AM

Is this new to 5.6?


FROM:hlee DATE:9/14/2007 9:32:52 AM

May be the color used for the main girder diaphragm should be different than the color for stringer diaphragm. Currently, both are red.



FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:58:19 PM

Jim, the answer to your question is "no" - we checked it in 5.5 and it is still there. We only now discovered it. We agree with Herman's suggestion. Thanks.


Incident 8177   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Prevent analysis of a truss from the Superstructure Definition on the model tree

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 10/1/2007 4:05:53 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Monday, October 01, 2007 12:05:53 PM


Provide a way to prevent analysis of a Truss defined under Truss Floor System when the analysis is requested from the Superstructure Definition or higher on the model tree. This can already be done for all other member types.


Incident 8179   

Folder /Support Center

Subject GFS/TFS - Provide a way to link a Stringer Member to another identical Stringer Member.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 10/1/2007 4:09:07 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Monday, October 01, 2007 12:09:08 PM


Provide a way to link a Stringer Member to another identical Stringer Member.


Incident 8180   

Folder /Support Center

Subject GFS/TFS - Provide a way to link a Floorbeam Member to another identical Floorbeam Member.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 10/1/2007 4:10:36 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Monday, October 01, 2007 12:10:37 PM


Provide a way to link a Floorbeam Member to another identical Floorbeam Member.


Incident 8204   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Reports from the Toolbar

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/11/2007 6:22:44 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:22:44 PM

We have at the top of the Report a pull down for report type.


This contains

BWS

LFD analysis

LRFD analysis


The LFD analysis gives us a report for LFD load rating

The LRFD analysis gives us LRFD design information


If I do a LRFR rating – the report is blank

It should be populated


I am using IE 7 if that makes any difference



FROM:pjensen DATE:Friday, October 12, 2007 4:44:47 PM

I have ie 7 - I had to reinstall the xml parser pluging. This is the same issue i had with acrobat after upgrade.... The system dose not update because is sees that it is installed.


FROM:jduray DATE:10/15/2007 8:53:23 AM

Populating that report was not part of our work plan for LRFR. I agree it is needed.


Incident 8230   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Add option to ignore compression reinforcement in the beam

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 10/22/2007 3:15:51 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:4/22/2008 9:33:06 AM

this is an enhancement. We'll have to add something to the UI to allow user to pick this


Incident 8245   

Folder /Support Center

Subject 4 Prestress Input Enhancements Needed

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/30/2007 11:48:47 AM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:48:48 AM

1. Copy Girders – (not girder lines but girders in the same line)

Many times PS girders are identical like 75-4@90-75

Enter 4 - 90 foot identical girders is a waste of time


2. If we can’t copy girders, then at least make it possible to copy the stirrup ranges from one girder to another.


3. Radio button to extend stirrups into the slab. The button could be “Extend All” (new) or Extend Selected” (existing method).


4. Horizontal Shear reinforcement – option to space the horizontal shear bars with the vertical shear bars (usually do it that way).


Incident 8267   

Folder /Support Center

Subject System Defaults Need to be Added

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 11/13/2007 5:28:47 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:28:47 PM

Is it possible to add more choices to the system defaults that currently available in the Config. Browser. At least then if designers don’t select the agency suggested engine settings they will be correct by default.


1. Member Alt. Properties In Prestress, LFD and LRFD, be able to set the Prestressing Modeling Method to Centerline of simple span bearing or Centerline of final supports.


2. Member Alt. Properties In Steel, LRFD Misc Tab, the two check boxes at the top – thee should be options set by agency defaults too.



FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:19:03 PM

There may be some more that should be included -


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/10/2009 10:18:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time

See also 8383.


Incident 8323   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Axial Loads due to Temperature are not in load combinations or Spec. Checking reports

Status Suspended

Submitted By Flango, Rich

Date Submitted 12/4/2007 7:04:23 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:rflango DATE:Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:04:23 PM


Changed simple span supports definition from pin and roller to two pin supports for Structure Definition #1. Added a temperature load. Temperature load appears in the FE Model and FE Acions but not in the following reports:


- Load Combinations

- Specification Checking

- Result graphs


See attached spreadsheet for more details, "Temperature_Forces_in_Spec_Check.xls".


FROM:jduray DATE:12/5/2007 9:12:29 AM

Which bridge?


FROM:rflango DATE:Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:39:03 PM

Structure Definition #1, Girder 2. Input revised for pinned supports. Refer to attached .xls file.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/20/2008 2:01:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I tested Structure Definition #1 G2 (attached bridge) in Beta 4. Temperature loads appear in the Limit States Report, Load Combinations Report and Axial branch of the Results Graph.


Krisha: Looks like Article 5.7.4.5 has been removed from rc girder. Which spec article is applicable to axial loads?



FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 6/24/2008 9:40:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The rc girder uses 5.7.3.2 for bending now, I don't think it considers axial loads in the spec check. Ask Jim for sure.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 4/9/2012 1:20:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Estimate also needs to include adding temperature to the 3d analysis.


Incident 8366   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Registration of dll's and registry information is version dependent. (enhancement)

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 12/11/2007 4:52:59 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:pjensen DATE:Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:53:39 AM

This is a request to change the process to register the product by version so that a user can run two versions at the same time. I appears to be a registration issue.


thanks


Incident 8379   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Provide another DL distribution method based on percentages of load

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 12/13/2007 2:41:35 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:jduray DATE:12/13/2007 9:43:58 AM

There are numerous requests to handle DL distribution in various ways. A general approach would be to allow the user to input the percentage of the load to be applied to each longitudinal member.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 10/23/2009 3:59:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time


Incident 8383   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Engine Tab Options for Opis LRFD Properties

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 12/18/2007 12:54:56 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:54:57 AM

When using engines like BRASS or Virtis Std engines for both LFD and LRFD we have engine tabs to set agency preferences. With Opis LRFD engine there are no engine properties settings. I had a short discussion with Jim about this and if I remember correctly he didn’t want any options or engine settings. That would restrict designers from using options provided in the LRFD specification or rules set by individual agencies.


In concrete we are missing:


Under the Member Alt Engine Properties:

Load sequence, Element Type, Wheel advancement, POI controls, spec checker output on/off and Load Combination output.


Under the Analysis Event Engine Properties:

Main output options and Intermediate Output Options



If this line of thought continues, when we do Prestressed we will be missing the same options as reinforced concrete plus:


Under the Structure Def Engine Properties:

LL Distribution


Under the Member Alt Engine Properties:

Prestressed modeling method (very important)


And in steel we will be missing the same options as reinforced concrete plus:


Under the Structure Def Engine Properties:

LL Distribution


Under the Member Alt Engine Properties:

The miscellaneous tab that contains info on appendix 6 usage, Plastic Moment analysis and Compactness at the pier



FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:33:46 PM

For Concrete:

In the view analysis report, being you can’t tell it 10th points or user defined points, you get them all. Makes digging out values much more difficult.

The same is true with the Report tool LRFD Analysis Output – many more values are printed, filling up the report, being you don’t have any control.



FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:38:49 PM

User defined points are important to check your steel cutoffs and area of steel required. Tenth points are used for most all other things that refer to points on the bridge (dead load and live load deflections, design of camber boards and haunch boards.

Sure would be nice if they all (user pts and 10th pts) didn’t show up in one big ugly report.


FROM:jduray DATE:1/2/2008 8:14:24 AM

What I suggested to the Beta testers is that we try to eliminate the engine data for the AASHTO LRFD engine. I believe our goal should be (we need to discuss this with the TF) to make Opis as easy to use as possible. I think the engine data as it presently exists works well for third-party engines. But I would like to see the Opis UI optimized for use of the AASHTO FE engine and spec-checker. If possible, all data, output and processing control should be out in the open for users to easily see and configure instead of being "hidden" on an engine data tab.


Load Sequence - I don't think BRASS does anything with this for RC since cross section properties do not vary by load type. - Not necessary for Opis.

Element Type - No option for Opis - always uses stepped.

Wheel Advancement increment - BRASS steps the vehicle across the member at a user-defined increment - Opis loads the peaks of the infl line and therefore does not use an increment.

LL Dist - Cross section code - Opis determines this automatically.


POI Control - Opis always generates at tenth points, user-defined points and at concrete and reinforcement change points. We (Baker staff) have discussed the possiblity of allowing the user to select points for spec-checking. This would allow for a reduced number of spec-check locations (for preliminary design). It could also facilitate a design process where the user focuses on experience-based locations first (locations of maximum/minimum actions) for determining reinforcement requirements.


Where would you like to control the POI output - for the mbr alt or for the event?


Spec-check and load combination output - why would the user want to turn these off?


As far as the reporting goes, I would like for the TAG to let us know which reports we are currently producing they would like to be able to disable. We can then decide the best way to handle that. There are some very large files being produced that should be optional. Are there others?


FROM:jduray DATE:1/2/2008 9:04:12 AM

Attached are two mockups for reporting and control options.


FROM:jduray DATE:1/2/2008 10:16:08 AM



FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:38:48 PM

This looks like the right direction, a pick list

Will agency controls be located here also (prestressed and steel)


FROM:tthompson DATE:Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:51:14 AM

Mr Rober Fulton suggested the following to me:

"Need to be able to choose shear method for ASD/LFD as well as LRFD."


FROM:jduray DATE:4/15/2008 10:59:52 AM

Delay for 6.1.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/10/2009 10:17:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time

See also 8267.


Incident 8433   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Spec check of individual pier components

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 1/22/2008 3:01:23 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:1/22/2008 10:05:12 AM

When you sit on the cap, columns or footings, the spec check button is available but doesn't do anything. Our original mockups specified that you would be able to sit on an individual component and do a spec check of just that component. Is that still in our workplan?


FROM:hlee DATE:6/6/2008 2:39:59 PM

Related to Incident 6608.


Incident 8437   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Foundation Geometry, Pile

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 1/23/2008 8:40:02 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:40:02 PM

The geometry GUI for a pile cap footing only views the cap like a spread footing, no pile. Was this intended? Sure would be nice to see a GUI showing the pile locations.


FROM:jduray DATE:3/5/2008 9:55:10 AM

I believe (Krisha - please confirm) footings are new to this development effort and schematics were removed from scope by the substructure TAG and TF to save $.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/5/2008 12:29:15 PM

That is correct. The TAG and TF decided to not implement any new schematics or add to any existing schematics to save money. Piles are a new feature and no schematics were planned for them in the work plan. (Although I agree it would be very nice to see the pile locations.)


Incident 8443   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Dead Load Camber Summary Report

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 1/24/2008 8:46:27 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:46:28 PM

This report has 2 issues for RC slabs


First one:

The deflection value is in inches to one decimal. The Analysis Results tabular report has this to 4 decimals. We need more accuracy than 1 decimal to actually be able to use this report. We convert this value to feet which is then used to construct the camber boards for construction formwork.


Second one:

This a total dead load camber summary. In our case , dead load includes the slab, the rail and the future wearing surface. For construction purposes we only use the slab dead load to create the camber boards –



FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, February 15, 2008 11:28:56 AM

If sacrificial wear is defined, that would be included in the above construction loads.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:2/28/2008 2:17:28 PM

Item 1: Fixed for beta 3. Camber output is now to 4 decimal places


Item 2: It is an enhancement to separate the slab/girder dead load from the total dead load camber for RC structures. (Note the RC camber report showing total dead load camber was accepted in Incident 7453.)


For BRASS LRFD, Opis is simply reporting the deflections that it receives from the BRASS LRFD program. Changes have to be made inside BRASS LRFD to pass back the separated dead load camber. That isn't in the current work plan.


Herman, can you check if we are able to separate the girder/slab dead load from the rest of the dead load in Opis Lrfd Engine relatively easily? If we can separate them easily please do it as part of the LRFD RC superstructure work plan. Otherwise it is an enhancement.


FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, April 04, 2008 2:51:36 PM

From the analysis results report - all dead loads are reported individually by dead load case - I guess I don't understand what you mean when you said the defelections aren't there??


FROM:hlee DATE:4/23/2008 9:30:30 AM

Is this request for RC slab only?


FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, April 28, 2008 11:54:07 AM

From: Herman Lee [mailto:HLee@mbakercorp.com]

Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:30 AM

To: Dean Teal

Subject: Incident 8443 (Dead Load Camber Summary Report)


Hi Dean,


Is your request to separate slab dead load from the total dead load camber report for RC slab only?


Thanks,

Herman


Yes, Incident 8443 was to get all the dead load cambers separate out making this a useful report for creating plans.

But if it can be done steel and PS also, that would be great. This would save the designer time, they have to find all the DL deflections separately anyway to create a set of construction plans.


FROM:hlee DATE:5/6/2008 1:35:41 PM

Some dead load cases reported by the BRASS LRFD engine are composed of more than one dead load component. For example, in RCTrainingBridge1's Structure Definition #1, the "Girder Weight" load case reported by BRASS is the girder weight calculated using the structural thickness of the top flange. The "Top Flange + Diaphragms" load case is the load from the (total - structural) thickness plus the diaphragms.


Each load case in the Opis LRFD Engine represents one dead load component. Currently, the camber report generation doesn't have engine specific instructions. Domain member results (DoMemberXYResults) also need to be enhances for storing information for each dead load cases. Since this involves the domain and possibly migration of saved results, I changed the status to Suspended and category to Enhancement.


Incident 8455   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Pipe Pile Substructure Option

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/4/2008 3:39:45 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Monday, February 04, 2008 10:39:45 AM

Our steel library only has I’s, angles, channels and Tee’s – no pipe pile

Should be the same as H-pile but need to grey out the strong direction x-y axis. To use pipe pile all we need is an allowable load per pile.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/4/2008 2:49:38 PM

Pipe piles were delayed for a later release by the original substructure TAG.


FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:03:24 PM

See VI# 8463 (Duplicate)

Montana doesn't use any H-Pile.

We should give serious considerations to providing Pipe pile.


FROM:dwarner DATE:Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:50:57 PM

We use H-Piles very rarely. All the jobs I'm working on are using Pipe Piles in pier footings and abutments.


FROM:dteal DATE:Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:48:21 PM


Incident 8494   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Design Aid for Column Steel

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 3/6/2008 4:45:36 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:45:37 AM

Enhancement Request:

In the GUI for Column Reinforcement

In column design it is common to use 1% steel as a minimum.


To cut down on iterations by the designer, it would be nice to have a wizard that would calculate and provide 1% steel for a starting place with a new design, that is what the designer is going to do anyway – lets save him some steps!!


After this check is done with 1% steel then the designer would have the option to increase as the designer see’s fit.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/6/2008 1:15:49 PM

Good suggestion. Wizard could ask user what bar size and then come up with a pattern that satisfies 1%


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/7/2010 5:21:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time

AI 2009-VO-088

Wizard to place Min. Steel required in columns and shafts.


Incident 8513   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Opis RC LRFD superstructure engine - provide report of dead load calcs

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 3/19/2008 5:20:57 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:3/19/2008 1:24:47 PM

An idea I had as a result of incident 8396. Refer to that incident for more details.


The export to the Opis RC LRFD Superstructure engine should create a report listing how the superimposed dead loads were computed.


Incident 8525   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Truss Command Language

Status Suspended

Submitted By Campisi, Paul

Date Submitted 3/27/2008 1:44:35 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM:pcampisi DATE:Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:44:35 AM

I am unable to get the angle box sections with the case of only 2 angles to work. There are no examples in the help file(Truss Input Command Language). Can you provide some double angle examples to work with?


Thanks


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 11/10/2008 9:26:07 AM Eastern Standard Time

Angle box section with just two angles is not supported. Refer to page 22 in the Truss Input Command Language manual.


Incident 8534   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject OPIS SUB: Bridge Explorer Tree

Status Suspended

Submitted By Colgrove, George

Date Submitted 4/2/2008 6:23:38 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:gcolgrove DATE:Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:23:38 PM

I have an issue with the tree including the substructure components. I do not think it is consistent with what we have used with V/O w/o Sub. I think the tree should be rearranged to have Substructure definitions directly after the superstructure definitions. The flow of the tree counters a easy flow through the process of entering data. There is a lot of back and forth - which causes many errors - until you clean it all up. I think this can be streamlined. See the enclosed documentation (in the document tab) for my suggestions.



FROM:gcolgrove DATE:Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:14:15 PM

Also in the Documents Tab is a jpeg of a suggested modification of the Pier Alternative Dialog. It adds the ability for the user to select an approaching and departing span for the pier if the bridge is comprised of multiple simple spans, or has the user select a continuous span and number of support.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/3/2008 8:28:22 AM

The tree was established 4 years ago after numerous meetings with the Substructure TAG and cannot be changed at this point without significant rework. The suggestions you are making may require an extensive redesign of the database. It would be useful for us to see a diagram of your ideas and we could then explore the possibility of revising the UI (but not for the 6.0 release). I'm setting the Category for this incident to Enhancement.


FROM:gcolgrove DATE:Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:52:14 PM

Thanks Jim I agree with you. For 6.0 this is not practical. I wish I had looked at the Sub part a little closer a few years ago, but it never got to the top of my to do list. I started many times but got pulled off to other things. A few days ago I had a brief meeting here with a couple users here and went over some gui stuff after I had used it for a week, and this was discussed. I just passed this along for future discussion. The diagram you asked for is included in the documents tab (see the PDF). I swapped some stuff around on the tree.


Incident 8536   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject OPIS SUB: Vehicles tab for LRFD Substructure Design

Status Suspended

Submitted By Colgrove, George

Date Submitted 4/2/2008 6:41:12 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:gcolgrove DATE:Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:41:13 PM

“LRFD Substructure Design Settings” – Vehicles Tab – It is not intuitive that you need to select a limit state prior to selecting truck to analyze. I think it would be better to swap the Vehicle Selection and Vehicle Summary fields. When you click on a limit state, trucks that can be selected will show.


See pic in documents.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/3/2008 8:35:23 AM

This is as designed and not a bug. Changing to an enhancement.


Incident 8570   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Truss Will Not Rate from Bridge Explorer Unless it Has Been Checked Out

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 4/16/2008 4:46:49 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:46:50 PM


When attempting to rate a truss bridge from Bridge Explorer, the bridge model (unlike all other structure types) must first be checked out. We feel that checking out a truss bridge should not necessary when rating a bridge directly from Bridge Explorer.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/17/2008 9:24:26 AM

This is by design and is necessary because floorbeam reactions are computed and saved to the database during the analysis.

We will investigate an alternative solution that does not save the the floorbeam reactions to the db.


Incident 8581   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Schematic of pier reinforcement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Warner, David

Date Submitted 4/22/2008 5:22:29 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:kkennelly DATE:4/22/2008 1:27:12 PM

This item was originally entered in 8567 and split out from that incident.


These are a few things I found while entering a completely new pair of hammer head piers on spread footings. I had previously "copied" a finished three span steel bridge from version 5.5 over to 6.0 Beta. I was adding a foundation to this bridge and found a few areas that may speed things up, or could use some work.


1)

Pictured x-section:

This applies to column reinforcement, spread footing reinforcement, and cap/hammerheads. A pictured cross section of reinforcement placing would dramatically reduce designer and checker time. Preferably a printable picture with dots for bars. I added a URL in the documents section. KSU_RC is a program I use for Moment Curvature and Force deflection. It has a great interface for displaying bar placement. A picture display of bar placement drastically reduces time spent seeing if bars are located correctly.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:4/22/2008 1:29:07 PM

Our original mockups for Substructure contained windows where you could view the reinforcement in the pier cross sections. These windows were elminated from 6.0 to reduce costs.


FROM:dwarner DATE:Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:42:09 PM


Incident 8600   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Substructure Wizards Needed

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 4/24/2008 1:10:08 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:10:09 AM

Input Wizards are needed!


With so many GUI’s and so many GUI’s dependant on other GUI input there needs to be substructure input wizards.


- Pier Wizard

- Cap

- Column Wizard

- Foundation


I am afraid that if we don’t simplify the input process we will not retain many users.


FROM:jduray DATE:4/28/2008 2:53:25 PM

We need direction from the TF on how to proceed. We could discuss with the TAG and prepare mockups for discussion with the TF in June (or earlier if desired).


FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 8/7/2008 9:50:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Has anything happened here?


Incident 8624   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Reports

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 4/30/2008 1:01:57 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:jduray DATE:4/30/2008 9:01:14 AM

This incident is a collection of other incidents dealing with improvements to the reporting capabilities.


Incident 8625   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Reinforcement - add square bar equivalents to the help.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 4/30/2008 1:08:33 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description


Incident 8642   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Stage 1 Reaction Error for Continuous PS I-beams.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 5/8/2008 9:01:53 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM:tarmbrecht DATE:Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:01:54 PM


For Prestressed Concrete I-beam bridges continuous for the composite section but simple span for initial dead loads the non-composite (Stage 1) reactions should be the same at each end of each span but as shown in the attached Word Document they are doubled at the ends adjacent to the next span.


Accompanying xml file is also attached.


FROM:hlee DATE:5/12/2008 9:09:42 AM

Looks like Virtis Std Engine has the same issue.

Brian, please assign to Mehrdad after you are done.



FROM:bgoodrich DATE:Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:14:58 AM

I have reviewed this issue and requested input from Jay Puckett.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 3/23/2010 9:33:44 AM Mountain Daylight Time

BRASS only stores the reaction for the final support condition, i.e., it does not store the reaction on both sides of a double-bearing pier. This issue was forwarded to WYDOT.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 4/15/2010 2:04:44 PM Mountain Daylight Time

Within BRASS, the reaction represents the force applied to the abutment/pier and not the force to the bearing. An e-mail from Mike Watters stated "We will leave the program as is." I am assigning this issue to Mehrdad now.


FROM: Mehrdad Ordoobadi DATE: 5/7/2010 7:14:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The values that we have always been showing at the middle support for steel or RC or PS beams have been the total support reaction at the support. The total reaction at the pier is not the sum of the reactions at the left and right of the support. I think this is not a bug.


Stage 1 bearing line reactions are available in the shear column. So in this example the reaction at the left of the support is 31.2 kips and at the right is 29.4 kip.


Incident 8644   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Truss Input from STADD

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 5/9/2008 1:14:07 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, May 09, 2008 9:14:07 AM

Do you know if it is possible to import a stadd file that defines a truss into Virtis?


FROM:jduray DATE:5/13/2008 9:05:19 AM

That may be a strong feature to add but at this time it is not supported.


Incident 8697   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Bridge Layout Wizard, Validation Error - Add Route to the wizard

Status New

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 5/30/2008 8:13:07 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Friday, May 30, 2008 4:13:09 PM

One item that should be added next time this GUI is touched is Route Number.

When you create a bridge with this wizard and then save your bridge, unless you add the route number to the Bridge Description, validate will always indicate an error. It would be best for users if they could complete the Layout Wizard and save their new bridge without validate indicating an error is present.


FROM:kkennelly DATE:6/3/2008 12:08:04 PM

Should we make the lack of a Route Number a Warning in the validation instead of an Error?


FROM: Joseph Ihnat DATE: 6/20/2008 9:42:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed folder to Support Center and version to 5.6 Release.


FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 8/7/2008 9:38:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time

A warning would be better

But why have it in the first place?

We don't get a warning for not entering the county, ownership, location, ect?? So why is Route singled out in the first place?


Incident 8713   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Locking Superstructure when Substructure is Being Entered

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/3/2008 9:48:08 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:dteal DATE:Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:48:09 PM

I think we need the option to lock the superstructure so certain items can’t be changed.

It seems like there is several places in substructure input that you can change that effects superstructure – or vice versa.


Items that are related either need to be locked or dynamically linked (if you change the span length or reference line in one place it will update ALL locations.


At Minimum we need to pop up a warning


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 6/4/2009 11:41:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time

We need to test the new Bridge Protection feature satisfies this request.


Incident 8721   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject TRUSS/FLOOR SYSTEMS: Deck Profile - Compute from Cross Section

Status Suspended

Submitted By Colgrove, George

Date Submitted 6/4/2008 5:22:39 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM:gcolgrove DATE:Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:22:40 PM

This is an enhancement request. No big urgency. Would it be easy to use similar code for girder deck profiles to create the same button that computes the deck profile from cross section in the deck profile dialogs for both the stringers and floor beams. Also, once defined for one, could this data be automatically entered into the other with respect to that member. So in the case the data was entered for Floor Beams, the appropriate data would also be entered into the deck profile dialog for stringers.


Incident 8759   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Duplicate Function in Reinforcement Tabs

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ruby, Jeff

Date Submitted 6/25/2008 1:56:36 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 6/25/2008 10:00:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I have observed that when you "Duplicate" a line in the Reinforcement tabs of various substructure elements that the "Start Distance" of the duplicated line doesn't get populated with the "End Distance" of the previous line. This appears to be inconsistent with the "Superstructure" windows of Opis. At least that seems to be the default behavior of the superstructure tabs. It would be nice if the substructure windows were consistent with this format. It saves on input time.


FROM: Joseph Ihnat DATE: 7/1/2008 12:15:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Not all windows behave as you describe. That behavior was not specified for this window.

See also the reinforcement for a Schedule Based RC Structure.


FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 7/2/2008 10:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I would think that ALL "schedule based" input windows with the "Duplicate" button should act the way I described. If I wasn't going to start where I left off, no matter what number that carried forward with the "duplicate" would probably have to be edited anyway. So, by carrying the previous number forward there is only a potential for saving time on input. Plus, isn't it easier for the programmers to always do it the same? I vote for always starting a "duplicate" from the previous "end of the range". At least change the Severity to Annoying. If you want your users to be annoyed, this is a sure-fire way to do it. In addition, Even though I view this as a design flaw, if you don't accept it that way at least change this to an enhancement. I would rather have a chance to fix this than just consider the issue resolved. Thanks.


FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 7/2/2008 10:47:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Oops. Forgot to change the status to "Resubmit" before I updated.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 7/15/2008 8:25:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I'm going to mark this as a suspended enhancement.


We follow the following logic in the UI:


For items that cannot have a gap or overlap along the length of the beam (like steel flange plates) the New and Duplicate buttons populate the Start Distance with the previous end distance.


For items that can have gaps or overlaps (like schedule based reinforcement in the superstructure beam and the pier) we do not populate the Start Distance with the previous end distance. Reinforcement typically overlaps due to required development lengths before the bars are developed so we expect users to overlap bars and thought it would be annoying to force the user to change the start distance. (The superstructure Schedule based RC Girder Profile window has operated this way since it was introduced in version 5.2)


Incident 8760   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject 3D Schematic Doesn't Show Piling

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ruby, Jeff

Date Submitted 6/25/2008 2:09:19 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 6/25/2008 10:11:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I know everything isn't totally complete. But it would be nice if the 3D schematic would at least "acknowledge" in some way that we have piling defined. With the batter and orientation options we have, it would be nice to see visually that things were entered correctly. At least for now a "line" where the piling are would be a help.


Incident 8766   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject 3-D schematic view properties

Status Suspended

Submitted By Warner, David

Date Submitted 6/26/2008 3:04:12 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: David Warner DATE: 6/26/2008 11:08:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time

When I look at my 3-D schematic of my pier, and then click properties, and make dimensioning show up, see attached JPEG, Is there anyway to make those properties stay. Each time I open the 3-d schematic I have to click properties and make dimensions show up. Those dimensions go away each time I close a 3-d Schematic. Can those properties tab choices be a little more permanent?


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 6/26/2008 12:28:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I am changing the incident to an enhancement request.


Incident 8782   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject 5.7.3.2

Status Suspended

Submitted By Warner, David

Date Submitted 7/7/2008 4:47:22 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: David Warner DATE: 7/7/2008 1:11:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Flexural resistance (5.7.3.2) has a resistance factor specified from 5.5.4.2.


Where are the calculations for this phi value? How do you know if you have a tension, compression, or transition situation? See Figure C5.5.4.3.1-1.


In the screen shot of the footing flexural resistance, it just says phi*Mn.


I happen to agree with this phi*Mn value, it's close enough. In this case it's tension controlled, and phi = 0.9. But I would like to see how you came about gathering the phi value.


For other kinds of members this phi value can be variable, and needs checking.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 7/9/2008 8:06:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The current code checks for the transition region but the details for those computations are not reported, just the resulting phi value.


FROM: David Warner DATE: 7/30/2008 11:46:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Enhancement? Ok, I'll accept this then...


Incident 8812   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement request - add option for AASHTO Eq 8-59

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 7/30/2008 8:46:42 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 7/30/2008 4:56:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time

After running several RC culverts lately, I suggest that the program have the option to calculate the shear capacity per AASHTO equation 8-59, which is the special provision for shear capacity of slabs of box culverts with more than 2’ of fill. Equation 8-59 is very similar to the standard or default equation used 8-48. Since a great amount of the culverts input in VIRTIS are controlled by the shear capacity of VIRTIS, the batch runs for permit loads over culverts may show incorrect shear capacities which may affect the time required to evaluate permit applications.


Incident 8818   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject enhancement for graphical user interface based on presentation by George Colgrove in vobug 2008

Status Suspended

Submitted By Obeidat, Khalid

Date Submitted 8/6/2008 2:07:30 AM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Khalid Obeidat DATE: 8/5/2008 10:12:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time

enhancement to GUI based on George Colgrove's presentation to 2008 VOBUG meeting and review by a committee of users. Please contact George for more information


Incident 8823   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Truss Import Tool

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/7/2008 1:28:20 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 8/7/2008 9:29:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Many trusses exist/have been modeled in STAAD.

A utility that could import this truss model from STADD to Virtis would be of great value.


Incident 8845   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject NSG will not run on Adjacent PS Box bridge with no deck.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 8/12/2008 1:45:12 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/12/2008 9:47:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Elizabeth Befikadu, MHD.


Attached the PS3 Adjacent PS Box training bridge.



FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 11/10/2008 8:49:46 AM Eastern Standard Time

Only G2 is defined in the system. All girders must be defined (or linked to ones that are defined).


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 1/16/2009 9:44:46 AM Eastern Standard Time

All girders are defined in the attached PSBoxBridgeWithAllGirdersDefined.xml file. Belows are the messages from NSG analysis.


=================================================

Retrieving engine specific settings for controlling output and model generation...

Maximum number of nodes for in-memory storage of results reset to 2000.

Generating advanced analysis finite element models...

Generating 3D finite element model for superstructure...

Generating beam elements for the girders/stringers...

Generating 2D finite element models for each girder/stringer...

Deck thickness must be greater than zero for analysis to run!


Analysis failed!

=================================================



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/30/2010 10:30:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Deck is required in the generation of the 3D FE model during the Distribution Factor Analysis.


Incident 8848   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Library Properties – PS with Radius Fillet

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/13/2008 8:15:23 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 8/13/2008 4:16:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time

On wide top flange PS beams that have radius fillets

If you enter the correct dimensions and use the calculate button on the properties tab – you will not get the correct properties. You will get a area that is closer to a taper flange without fillets.


On a Nebraska NU78 section, the area will be off by 27 square inches. This will throw off all you other calc’s that are dependent on area.


Being BRASS does not use radius fillets, we have to fudge in our numbers without a radii and trick the properties calculations into being correct.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/14/2008 7:50:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time

PS Beam Properties tab Compute button Virtis/Opis Help states that

"For prestressed I beams with curved fillets, the properties are computed assuming the curved fillets do not exist."


Following requests are identified:

1. Request the Compute button to include radius fillets.

2. Enhance BRASS to accept radius fillet as input or enhance BRASS to accept properties as input.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/12/2012 2:33:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Category from Enhance BRASS to Enhancement.


Incident 8849   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Unit Weight PS Sections Library

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/14/2008 12:18:35 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 8/14/2008 8:19:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The Nominal Load (unit weight) calculated in the PS Properties tab in Library calculates the weight using 150 #/ft^

High performance deep beams like the Nebraska NU2000 (NU78) is 6.5” deep with wide top flanges.

These beams are made with high strength concrete – 7 ksi to 10 ksi.

The unit weight of the concrete is more like 155 #/ft^ (may have granite aggregate)

On these beams, spanning 145’, this may make a difference of 2.3 kip reaction at each beam end.


We need to add an estimated concrete weight to the properties grid so we get a more accurate Nominal load value in 6.1




Incident 8858   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Girder-Floorbeam Problems

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 8/20/2008 7:37:51 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 8/20/2008 3:46:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time

We're having a couple of issues related to analysis of a Girder-Floorbeam system superstructure:


Virtis is generating a message that there are too many (46) distributed loads for BRASS to handle (max 38). We're wondering if anything in the attached model can be changed to get around that even though this girder does have a large number of section changes along its length. (Obviously it would be best if BRASS were enhanced to allow more loads, as this could be a problem for the analysis of a significant number of major bridges, which we're starting to enter into Virtis.)


In the attached model, the cantilevered floorbeam, when entered as part of a Floor System Superstructure seems to yield reasonable results (Inventory/Operating rating factors = 1.243/1.597) with the control point being at the support. However, when entered using the Floor Line Superstructure method the rating at that point drops to Inventory/Operating rating factors of 0.064/0.107. It was determined that the reason for this was that Mr, from Eqn. 10-103c, was greatly reduced. This in turn seems to have been caused by the value of Lb, which for the Floor System was 10.5’, being 53.0’ under the Floor Line model. Have we made some error in the input of the Floor Line model (which should be essentially the same as the Floor System), or is there a bug in Virtis that is causing this? (Attached the BRASS output files for both Floor System & Line floorbeam analyses.)


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 8/26/2008 2:08:09 PM Mountain Daylight Time

There is a difference in the unbraced lengths between the system and line models. I will investigate why they are not consistent.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 3/23/2010 12:46:57 PM Mountain Daylight Time

This issue is related to Incident 5416. For a floor system, the bracing is assumed to be at those locations where stringers intersect the floorbeam. For a floor line, there is no input related to bracing. Should we assume that the main girder provides bracing?


FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 3/25/2010 9:10:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From my consultant:


Virtis doesn’t provide for manual input of lateral bracing points for floorbeams. However, I had thought that to get reasonable results entering top flange support for the full length of the floorbeam under “Lateral Support” would work. That was done for the line floorbeams in the bridge model we provided for this incident. (I was not previously aware that the stringers in a GFS system are being automatically used as bracing points.) However, we should definitely be able to enter lateral bracing points for line floorbeams. The main girder could be assumed to provide bracing but if we had a way to manually enter the bracing points we would naturally enter them there. The latter is what I recommend since that would be consistent with the way bracing is entered for longitudinal beam lines. I don’t think we should have both a manual and an automatic entry of main girders as bracing points.


Somewhat related, Virtis should allow for entry of cantilevered floorbeams in Truss-Floorbeam systems, just like it already does in Girder-Floorbeam systems.


Also, what about the first issue brought up regarding “too many distributed loads”? Is there any workaround available?


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 4/15/2010 2:21:00 PM Mountain Daylight Time

The number of distributed loads request is already on the BRASS enhancement list. I did forward your request to add your name to the other users making this request.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 5/5/2010 1:36:04 PM Mountain Daylight Time

E-mail from Mike Watters:


I will add this to my documentation for Enhancement Requests. The users will need to prioritize this request.


Micheal J. Watters, P.E.

Principal Bridge Engineer

Special Assignments Squad



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/12/2012 3:12:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Category from Enhance BRASS to Enhancement.


Incident 8874   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject OPIS P/S Girder, BRASS LRFD, Concrete Stresses uncoupled from Prestress.

Status Assigned

Submitted By Warner, David

Date Submitted 9/11/2008 7:44:01 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: David Warner DATE: 9/11/2008 4:03:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

After analyzing a Prestressed girder, Concrete stresses which do not contain Prestress stresses, Where are these located? DC+DW+LL(IM) but no Prestress. All in units of MPa. See attached Picture.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 9/12/2008 9:11:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time

BRASS-LRFD calculates the Service I compressive stresses and Service III tensile stresses for each point of interest along the structure. BRASS-LRFD combines the stresses due to dead load, prestressing, and live load using the factors applicable to each limit state. Please clarify the question.


FROM: David Warner DATE: 9/12/2008 12:01:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Attached are the bridge xml and a screen capture (untitled2.jpg). The screen capture may be the clarifying question we need to proceed.


Thanks


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 9/12/2008 4:24:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time

Thank you for the screen shot.


Herman - The text in the results tree is misleading. The "Dead Load Only" item should include PS. These tree item strings are not generated by BRASS, so I am assigning this back to you.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 9/15/2008 12:21:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time

May, when you modify the text, make sure it only affects "Factored Dead & Prestress".


FROM: David Warner DATE: 9/16/2008 10:44:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time

So there's no quick spot in the output to get dead load only stresses? DC1, DW, Girder Self Weight?


There's PS always included?


Thanks


FROM: David Warner DATE: 9/17/2008 10:41:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I've attached some screen captures of what I'm talking about. "XML Report Crawler.jpg" The screen capture's two output files are point 105.00 opened twice.


A(MPa) = B (both B's added up) / (Divided by C) See crawler.jpg


So if instead stresses due to girder self weight only, divide the B on the left (DEAD) by the C value and we have Girder self weight stress.


Since the information is contained in the output files, and my screen captures show where, could we dialogue about this being an output enhancement.


It's hard to explain to my engineer's where to look through these text files. They need a quick repeatable report that doesn't involve text surfing.


Let's dialogue about enhancement options. to find DC, DW, Girder Wt, Haunches + Diaphragms, etc... (Stresses)


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 9/19/2008 9:10:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time

May, please change the Status to Suspended and Category to Enhancement after you modified the text as Brian Goodrich suggested.


Dave, is this output enhancement request for BRASS output file only OR you would also like to see these uncoupled stresses in Opis user interface?


FROM: David Warner DATE: 9/23/2008 1:31:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Hmmm. I think I am only interested in seeing these as an uncoupled stress in OPIS.


I know where to look in the BRASS output.

For some engineers the BRASS Ouput is fine. Still, other engineers look for the point, click, results which seem to me to mean grabbing BRASS Output and showing it in OPIS.


I appreciate your help Herman.


Dave W.


Incident 8894   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Report Tool Sorting

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 9/30/2008 6:24:24 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 9/30/2008 2:25:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I am creating a Bridge Explorer Report using 3 Bridge List Attributes (Bridge ID, Bridge Name and Year Built).

Using Bridge Id as the first item


Our bridge Id is made of CCC-SSS

Where CCC is a 3 digit county number

Where SSS is a 3 digit serial number


No matter what order I have the Bridge Explorer sorted in, the report always generates the report by the ascending BID number.


Are there any controls for sort order?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/1/2008 1:32:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time

There's no control of the sort order in the Bridge Explorer Report.


FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 10/7/2008 3:10:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time

To bad!


Incident 8906   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Additional Dead Loads (Studs, stiffeners, splice plates)

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 10/24/2008 3:04:39 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 10/24/2008 11:05:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Currently we know the steel volume for studs and stiffeners.

The DL from these items are not calculated and used inside VO, they should be!


Splice Plates – We can enter splice plate locations but not sizes. We should either allw for entering the size for DL calculations OR provide a field to enter the DL in that GUI.


Incident 8935   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Determination of single lane loaded

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 12/5/2008 6:10:58 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/5/2008 1:11:30 PM Eastern Standard Time

Both BrassLrfdLoadControl.cpp and BrassStdLoadControl.cpp uses CEngineExport::GetStructDefLanesLoaded to determine whether it's single lane loaded.

GetStructDefLanesLoaded should only check to use Std Spec or MCEB if the call is coming from BrassStdLoadControl.cpp.



FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 12/5/2008 2:34:47 PM Mountain Standard Time

I see that the Standard spec or MCEB is set in the Preferences window. This selection is used to compute the simple beam live load distribution factor for the Standard spec. The export uses this selection to help determine which distribution factors should be passed on to the engine. Now that LRFR is available, it too has an article (6.2.3.2) regarding the number of lanes for roadway widths from 18 to 20 feet. I think this is a design versus rating issue. Do we need a similar input for LRFR or should the existing input be revised to include the LRFD and LRFR articles?


Could the input on the Preferences window be reworked, so the selection can be used for multiple reasons? How about a header that reads "Method for Number of Traffic Lanes (Rating)." The "Compute simple beam distribution..." label could be moved to a note on the window.




FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 4/1/2009 3:43:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Mockup for changes to the Preferences window is attached.


Incident 8949   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject alt timber loading for deck- where did it go????

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 12/23/2008 8:22:01 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Paul Jensen DATE: 12/23/2008 3:30:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

we were adding timber bridge decks to our system and found an issue, where is the loading specified by articals 3.7.6a and 3.7.7a? When the timber addition was made to the Virtis, on the timber deck page (see attached screen shot).


for the short term, which table updates this for export so that I can resolve the problem......


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/24/2008 9:54:37 AM Eastern Standard Time

For girder line superstructure definition, two more fields (Overhang and Girder spacing) are available for Deck Rating Parameters (see attached GirderLineDeckWindow.png file). These two fields are at that location since the beginning (version 5.0). If this is not the information you are looking for, please provide more detail on the problem.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/30/2009 2:20:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Information Needed E-mail sent on 10/30/09.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/1/2009 10:05:55 AM Eastern Standard Time

Information Needed E-mail sent on 12/1/09.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 1/5/2010 9:44:31 AM Eastern Standard Time

No response to Information Needed E-mail for two months. Status changed to Closed.

Please let us know if you want to reopen this incident.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/4/2010 1:55:42 PM Eastern Standard Time

E-mail from Brian Goodrich:


I don’t think the Virtis GUI has ever supported this load reduction. Madero does, but the export is hard-coded right now for this to be ignored. This option applies to both H and HS type trucks. This option appears to do either the full or reduced loads but not the critical of the two.


Incident 8989   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Schedule Based Reinforcement Input for Concrete I Girder

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 3/11/2009 6:36:30 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 3/11/2009 2:52:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Currently there is only cross section based reinforcement input for concrete I girder. It is very time consuming to input all reinforcement information. In California, there are many RC box girder bridge. If there is schedule based input, we can use I-girder to rate the box girder bridge with some modifications. This will greatly improve our productivity.


Incident 9038   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Unsymmetrical concurrent forces for symmetrical truss

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 4/16/2009 7:44:34 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/16/2009 3:46:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Joshua Colella, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.


Received via e-mail (jcolella@mbakercorp.com):

====================================================

In regards to this structure. We are also noticing that we are obtaining different coincident force reactions for symmetric nodes. The truss is symmetrical about L4U4 and, for example, are obtaining different values for the vertical member at L1 and L7 (which, due to symmetry, are the same node).


L1U1 @ L1 with 39.54 kips and concurrent forces of 32.42 kips at the lower chords

L&UL @ L7 with 39.54 kips and concurrent forces of 44.42 kips at the lower chords


I would expect these concurrent forces to be the same. Given the symmetry of the structure, is there any reason that these differences are occurring?

====================================================



FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 5/15/2009 3:47:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I ran this truss on an alpha build of 6.1 and coudl not reproduce the unsymmetrical results described above. I believe tha work done of the influence line loading for other incidents included fixing this problem as well.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/2/2010 7:57:46 AM Eastern Standard Time

E-mail from Joshua Colella:

====================================================

Another update; it appears that we are still encountering the analysis engine’s inaccuracy described in AASHTOware technical support incident 9038 (un-equal coincident forces at symmetrical truss nodes).


We have the model up and running using the workaround. I also re-analyzed another truss model for a bridge we submitted to our client prior to the release of Virtis 6.1 and again, encountered the above inaccuracy issue.

====================================================


Attached the 6.1 bridge file (BIN 04F 2-2-10.xml) and a screen capture (L1 vs L7 2-2-10.png) to illustrate the issue.



FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 4/27/2010 8:07:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I believe the unsymmetric results are for the hanger members only (L1U1, L3U3, L5U5, L7U7). there are two truck positions that cause the maximum effect (for each hanger). The Influence lines for the concurrent actions are being loaded with the vehicle moving Left to Right, but Right to Left may case larger forces int he concurrent members.


Modify the infl loader to store both and apply tot he concurrent members and select the max/min.



FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 4/28/2010 2:09:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Herman - I added to the infl line loader class the tracking of multiple vehicle positions that result in the same max/min action. Please make the changes to the concurrent forces for truss.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/2/2012 11:00:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The reported concurrent forces are based on the first truck position that causes the critical force in the primary member. I added a note in the report for the 6.4 Release.

The concurrent forces report needs to be enhanced when more than one truck positions cause the critical force in the primary member.


Incident 9158   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject timber stingers on floorbeams (truss and floor systems)

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 5/15/2009 5:01:39 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Paul Jensen DATE: 5/15/2009 1:05:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time

we have a high number of bridges that have timber stringers and timber decks on floorbeams (trusses and girder systems). since we can rate timber decks on steel girders and timber girders, why can't we rate these combinations on trusses? these options are not available to us in the floorsystem models.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/15/2009 3:48:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Looks like all the components are there, but still have to connect them in the user interface and analysis export in floor and truss systems.


Incident 9175   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject concurent force report- multiple trucks

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 5/20/2009 6:58:39 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Paul Jensen DATE: 5/20/2009 3:04:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time

when reviewing the the concurent forces report for a multiple truck run, the report [i think] thinks that there are several trucks on the bridge not the one truck at the single time. we are not sure what force we are getting because we see several trucks in the same report. we should have the maximum and conncurent forces for each truck individualy not the summary of all of the trucks and only the truck with the maximum for that connection location.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/20/2009 3:32:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In the Concurrent Forces Report, the critical live load force of each primary member is the max of all the trucks. The concurrent forces are then determined based on this critical truck position. The critical live load force can be related back to the live load force reported in the Rating Summary Report.


Incident 9176   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject enhancement- computing maximum shear on the x and y planes

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 5/20/2009 7:05:52 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Paul Jensen DATE: 5/20/2009 3:09:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time

this is a request for enhanceing the concurent and max force report for returning the shear in the x plane and in the y plane for coputational use.


it would be better, if we could all agree on using the fhwa guidelines for computing a rating for the gussets and have it "inline" with the product.


Incident 9251   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Getting Rating done at points not asked for - RC

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 6/2/2009 8:11:19 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 6/2/2009 4:17:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In testing Virtis LF engine in 6.1 Beta 1 - I also noticed that this occurs in 6.0.


But I have a RC Slab bridge that I have entered Cross Section Based and in 6.1 I have asked only for at user defined points of interest but I'm getting my rating to control at locations other than the user defined points of interest.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 6/2/2009 4:18:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I attached an example bridge.

It analyzes ok with BRASS LF.

But not with Virtis LF.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/8/2009 4:43:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Virtis Std Engine doesn't have the capability to turn off generation of tenth points and section change points. I added analysis messages to warn user that turning off these two options is not supported.


Category changed to Enhancement for supporting these two options in the Virtis Std Engine.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 9/9/2009 2:17:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Fine to leave as an enhancement.


Incident 9313   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject steel channel section for exterior griders

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 6/23/2009 4:12:09 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Paul Jensen DATE: 6/23/2009 12:14:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time

we can define a channel section in the beam defs but when we want to use them for the exterior girder, they are not supported. we need to have the ability to use a steel shape for a beam and run the analysis.


this may be a dup, but this need resolution.


Incident 9416   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Support harped and straight debonded strand configuration for PS U shape

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 8/6/2009 2:24:17 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/6/2009 10:24:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Requested by Clint Krajnik (clint.krajnik@TSHengineering.com), Tsiouvaras Simmons Holderness during 2009 User Group Meeting.


Received bridgeware e-mail on 7/28/2009:

==============================================================================

The attached Word file shows a screen capture of Virtis in which the Strand Configuration Type is set to 1)Straight/Debonded. The input box is grayed out, and does not allow the user to switch to 2)Harped or 3)Harped and straight debonded. We have girders that have both harped and straight debonded strands, but have been unable to input them that way.

==============================================================================


Incident 9421   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Increase max number of axles in a vehicle in Madero engine

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 8/11/2009 5:00:05 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 8/11/2009 1:00:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of John Estes, CDot at the 2009 User Group meeting:


BRASS engine for timber structures has a max of 20 axles. We need a a min of 25 axles.


(Note from John stated 'BRASS engine' but I suspect he meant Madero)


Incident 9422   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject forces in PanelPointMaxForces & PanelPointConcurrentForces files

Status Suspended

Submitted By Metcalf, William

Date Submitted 8/11/2009 8:50:47 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: William Metcalf DATE: 8/11/2009 4:57:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I have noticed that the forces in the PanelPointMaxForces file include impact and distribution factor. The forces in the PanelPointConcurrentForces file do not include impact or distribution factors. There may be a good reason that the forces are reported this way. However, if there is not then this should be fixed. I don't know that it matters which way it is done but unless there is a good reason to do otherwise it should be the same in the two files. If it is not it is inviting trouble for the people using the information.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/30/2010 2:58:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed to Maintenance (TF and TAG May 2010)


Incident 9424   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Maximum Spans for Concrete Bridge

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 8/12/2009 7:46:45 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 8/12/2009 3:50:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time

We are using concrete T-beam to model a 10-span slab bridge and found that Virtis can only input maximum 9 spans. Is this right? Please see the attached file. Thanks.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/13/2009 8:39:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I copied the superstructure definition, added another span and modified G1 for 10 spans in the attached 10-Span.xml file. I got the following limitation when I tried to rate G1. Is there any workaround for this limitation?


===============================================

Error generating LFD/ASD load commands!

Error generating load group commands!

Load Case: DW

The number of deck uniform loads exceeds the maximum allowed by BRASS!

No. of uniform loads = 10 (Maximum = 9)

===============================================


FROM: George Huang DATE: 8/17/2009 10:55:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I have the feeling that error is due to the span number. For this particular bridge, 9-span model is fin for our rating purpose.


I also tried to use Virtis Engine with modified support conditions (because I got error message that Virtis Engine can only deal with pin or roller supports) for G1, this time there was error message and the program (Virtis) was shut down. When I re-open the Virtis, I even could not save file because the error in G2.


FROM: George Huang DATE: 8/17/2009 11:20:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The error message (Virtis_error.doc) and my revised file (10-spanGH.xlm) for G1 in "Copy of Span 1-10 (MDL 1) (06/09)" are attached.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/18/2009 9:08:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Brian, please assign this incident back to me after you are done.


FROM: George Huang DATE: 8/20/2009 6:14:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The 10 span model will run with Brass Engin if assign overlay with DC load case, but won't run with DC1 or DW load cases. With Virtis Engin it won't run even with DC load case.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/21/2009 8:39:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time

For Virtis Std Engine, one internal array exceeds its limit. We will add a check for this condition in 6.2 or 6.1 patch if there's one.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/5/2010 5:13:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

May, please attach the Virtis Std Engine input file.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/7/2010 9:25:29 AM Eastern Standard Time

Attached Virtis Std Engine input file.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 3/8/2010 2:52:05 PM Eastern Standard Time

The problem with exceeding one internal array size is not due to the number of spans, but a combination of number of analysis points and reinforcement ranges defined for the bridge. A fix will be made in 6.2 or 6.1 patch to catch this limit, inform the user and exit the program graciously.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/30/2010 12:53:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Resolved by Hasmukh Lathia on 3/30.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/9/2010 11:43:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Tested the 10-SpanGH.XML file in this incident.

Verified in 6.2 Beta 1.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/11/2010 2:11:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time

George Huang would like to change this incident to Virtis Std Engine enhancement request for increasing the size of the internal array.


FROM: George Huang DATE: 5/12/2010 4:29:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Herman, we were told the Brass LFD were able to handle bridge with more than 10 spans. If this is true, then the problem may due to the UI export file. Could you verify this?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/13/2010 10:36:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time

For BRASS LFD, the limitation is not the number of spans. The limitation is the number of uniform loads. Brain, has this been already requested by BRASS users?


===============================================

Error generating LFD/ASD load commands!

Error generating load group commands!

Load Case: DW

The number of deck uniform loads exceeds the maximum allowed by BRASS!

No. of uniform loads = 10 (Maximum = 9)

===============================================


E-mail sent to Brian Goodrich on 5/13 for clarification.



FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 5/13/2010 9:31:55 AM Mountain Daylight Time

The deck load module has a limit of 9 uniform loads as indicated by the error message. I will forward this to WYDOT.


One work-around would be to reduce the number of deck uniform loads by one and input this as a member load.


Incident 9427   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Opis Remote Installation

Status Suspended

Submitted By Waheed, Amjad

Date Submitted 8/13/2009 8:14:04 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Amjad Waheed DATE: 8/13/2009 4:14:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time

At the organizational level Virtis/Opis are installed on several workstations at different premises. New releases of the software require uninstalling and re-installing the client portion on several workstations. To save time and resources IT departments of several DOTs have started pushing the updates remotely during the after-work hours. This process not only saves time and manual efforts but also keeps the upgrades consistent across all machines.

I understand that it is the functionality/discretion of individual IT department whether they want to push the updates remotely or not. However the software should be tested/verified & marked ready for remote update of clients. This is request to test and mark the software Virtis/Opis ready for remote updates of the client machines within an organization holding a site license.


Incident 9428   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Video courses for fundamental training of Viris/Opis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Waheed, Amjad

Date Submitted 8/13/2009 8:14:41 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Amjad Waheed DATE: 8/13/2009 4:29:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Virtis/Opis are quite stable products now and the basic features of the GUI and library items do not change quite often. I think it will be in the better interests of the users as well as the consultants that videos of trainings on the basic/fundamentals of Virtis/Opis be produced. Those videos can then be posted on the VOBUG website. They would help the new users to get started quickly on the program without waiting for any training session. They will also save time on repeating the same fundamental training sessions at the conferences. The trainers’ time would be better spent on giving trainings on new and complex features of the program.


Incident 9452   

Folder /Support Center

Subject timber gluelam beams

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 8/21/2009 2:43:34 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Paul Jensen DATE: 8/21/2009 10:45:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time

looking to modify the timber program to include glulam beams. the use of the the proprites from sawn is not the same.


FROM: Paul Jensen DATE: 8/25/2009 11:07:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time

until when- will this be on the next TF agenda????????


Incident 9458   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Live Loads - AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation Spec 6.4.4.2.1

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 8/21/2009 8:36:15 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 8/21/2009 4:43:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Is this Spec Article (6.4.4.2.1) for Live Loads in Virtis LRFR?


States For All Span lengths

- critical loads shall come from

---- AASHTO Legal Loads (3, 3-3 and 3S2)

---- For Neg Moments and Reactions at Interior Supports - a lane load of 0.2 klf combined with TWO AASHTO Type 3-3 Trucks multiplied by 0.75 - headed in same direction - separated by 30 ft


In addtion - for span lengths greater than 200 ft

---- AASHTO Type 3-3 multiplied by 0.75 and combined with lane load of 0.2 klf


And also -

Dynamic Effects only on legal trucks and NOT the lane loads

and if ADTT < 500 - lane load excluded and 0.75 factor revised to 1.0 - if warranted by Engineer.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 8/24/2009 11:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Yes.


You can add vehicles to the "Legal Load Rating" category in the analysis settings.


If a vehicle does not have a lane load it is processed as described in bullet 1 under 6.4.4.2.1.

If a vehicle has a lane load it is processed as described in bullets 2 and 3 under 6.4.4.2.1.


There is a vehicle in the library named "AASHTO Lane-type legal Load Model". It is a Type 3-3 truck (multiplied by 0.75) with a lane load of 0.2 k/ft.


The last sentence regarding ADTT and engineering judgement is not implemented. 0.75 is always used and so is the lane load.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 9/9/2009 4:52:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Please mark this as an enhancement to allow the user to follow the AASHTO code if they so choose to use that option.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 9/9/2009 4:52:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed to Enhancement and Suspended and moved to Support Center.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/30/2010 10:17:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed to Maintenance (TF and TAG May 2010)



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/7/2013 11:01:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time

This enhancement is to support the following statement in 6A.4.4.2.1a.


"If the ADTT is less than 500, the lane load may be excluded and the 0.75 factor changed to 1.0 if, in the Engineer's judgement, it is warranted."


A workaround is to create a seperate vehicle with the lane load excluded and the 0.75 factor changed to 1.0. I tested this workaround. The modified Figure D6A-4 model worked as excepted but not the modified Figure D6A-5 model. I entered Incident 12644 for fxing the application of the modified Figure D6A-5 model.


Incident 9513   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject modulus of rupture choices

Status Suspended

Submitted By Price, Adam

Date Submitted 10/1/2009 6:56:42 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Adam Price DATE: 10/1/2009 3:04:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time

AASHTO 5.4.2.6 specifies different equations for the modulus of rupture for different areas of design. There is no way to specify different values for the modulus of rupture in Opis. I suggest that the program be enhanced with this capability.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/2/2009 10:21:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The modulus of rupture is associated with the concrete composition and f'c whicn are defined with the Concrete Material. Are you requesting to allow user to enter a different modulus of rupture for a specific spec article? Thanks.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 10/2/2009 4:17:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I'm guessing he is referring to this - depending on which code check you are dealing with - there are different modulus of rupture values:


5.4.2.6 Modulus of Rupture

Unless determined by physical tests, the modulus of

rupture, fr in ksi, for specified concrete strengths up to

15.0 ksi, may be taken as:

• For normal-weight concrete:

o When used to calculate the cracking

moment of a member in Articles 5.7.3.4,

5.7.3.6.2, and 6.10.4.2.1.................0.24vf'c

o When used to calculate the cracking

moment of a member in

Article 5.7.3.3.2 .............................0.37vf'c

o When used to calculate the cracking

moment of a member in

Article 5.8.3.4.3 .............................0.20vf'c

• For lightweight concrete:

o For sand-lightweight concrete .......0.20vf'c

o For all-lightweight concrete ...........0.17vf'c

When physical tests are used to determine modulus

of rupture, the tests shall be performed in accordance

with AASHTO T 97 and shall be performed on concrete

using the same proportions and materials as specified for

the structure.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/5/2009 9:33:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Received e-mail:


============================================

Herman,


Yes, the user needs to be allowed to enter different fr for specific article. These different values could be automatically calculated by Opis when f'c and the concrete composition are entered, and then manually changed if desired (just as the current single value of fr is input).


Thanks,



Adam Price, M.S., P.E.

Structural Specialist Supervisor 1

Tennessee Department of Transportation

============================================


Currently, Opis computes fr based on 5.4.2.6. This request is to enhance Opis to allow user to override the computed fr.


FROM: Adam Price DATE: 10/6/2009 8:53:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Not only does the user need to be able to override the computed fr, but the program needs to provide input boxes for the fr values required for the different code articles. Currently, two values for fr are needed, one for the minimum reinforcement check and a different one for crack control. Whenever the program gains the capability to check article 5.8.3.4.3, then a third value will be needed.


Incident 9515   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject DLA windows need improving

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 10/2/2009 6:49:14 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 10/2/2009 2:50:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

See 9287 for background.


I found the following behavior regarding DLA in the UI:


For the BRASS LRFR analysis, if mbr alt DLA is NULL we get the struct def DLA. If the struct def DLA is NULL we get the bridge DLA. This is the desired behavior and it was also implemented for the AASHTO LRFD/LRFR engine.


If the mbr alt and structure def DLA are NULL, the analysis checks the bridge DLA and if it is NULL the analysis is aborted with the following message.


“Error generating LRFD load commands!

Error generating LOAD-LIVE-DYNAMIC command!

Unable to determine LRFD impact factors!”


This is the desired behavior. For 6.1, the exports were changed to default to the AASHTO DLA values (from the data dictionary).



The DLA windows have some problems with default values for DLA:

For the struct def DLA window, if DLA is NULL it populates the window with the DLA from the bridge DLA – even if the user closes the window by clicking Cancel.


If the bridge DLA is NULL and the struct def window is opened, the struct def DLA gets set to 0 and no warning is displayed during the analysis. Not desirable.


If the bridge DLA window is opened and the DLA is NULL the window sets it to 15% and 33% even if the cancel button is clicked. Probably acceptable behavior but not intuitive.


The mbr alt window never gets populated from the struct def or bridge DLA (except when a new mbr alt is created).


The struct def window DLA should get set to NULL if the bridge DLA is NULL instead of zero, or set it to the AASHTO defaults. If the mbr alt DLA is NULL it should get set to the struct def DLA. Or we should change the behavior so mbr alt and structure def windows do not get DLA from the parent DLA window.


The revisions should be discussed with the TF/TAG.


Incident 9522   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject non linear yeild line method for slab bridges.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jensen, Paul

Date Submitted 10/7/2009 4:06:54 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Paul Jensen DATE: 10/7/2009 12:14:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time

this process will better predicting the flexural capacity of slab bridges. this issue was suggested from the scan on bridge safety and reliability.


this is an enhancement.


Incident 9532   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Virtis to BRASS seems to ignore median definition

Status Suspended

Submitted By Barnhill, Gale

Date Submitted 10/16/2009 11:31:20 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Gale Barnhill DATE: 10/16/2009 7:35:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I defined a girder system with a median appurtance.

I also defined a wearing surface.

The Structure Typical Section clearly shows two roadways on either side of the median.

When I analyze a member, the DW load effect reported is based on the WS applied between the exterior curbs without a deduction for the median.

I copied the Super Def and removed the median from the typical section and redefined the roadway.

The DW load effect reported is the same as the member with a median.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 11/2/2009 10:48:52 AM Mountain Standard Time

The BRASS export does not generate the median or curb commands. Therefore, BRASS cannot internally deduct the median width from the wearing surface. BRASS only supports one median, but Virtis can have multiple. So, BRASS generates these loads using other commands. This explains what is happening. Now what should we do?


A workaround would be to input a negative uniform load to remove the wearing surface in the median region. However, this is only necessary for BRASS.


A partial solution would be to export the median command if there was only one median. But then, what do we do if there are more?




FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/12/2012 3:16:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Category from Enhance BRASS to Enhancement.


Incident 9557   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Update StdEngine source code to Intel Fortran Compiler v10.1.013 .

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lathia, Hasmukh

Date Submitted 11/13/2009 8:44:12 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 11/13/2009 3:49:11 PM Eastern Standard Time

PennDOT has updated their BAR7 source code to Intel Fortran Compiler v10.1.013. Any updates received from or exchanged with PennDOT may not be compatible because of different versions of compilers. Also Intel may not support older version of their compiler.


Incident 9583   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Stiffener spacing used for Shear at support

Status Suspended

Submitted By Curtis, Beckie

Date Submitted 12/2/2009 4:33:18 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 12/2/2009 11:44:50 AM Eastern Standard Time

At a location of a change in stiffener spacing, the larger spacing is used for the analysis, which I agree with for intermediate spacings since the shear shouldn't change significantly on either side of the point of interest. However, at the support of continuous beams, the shear can be very different on each side of the support and therefore the requirement for stiffeners would be different.

I verified the program uses the larger spacing at the support for the Virtis STD engine, not sure about Brass LFR engine (see previous issue) and I did not check LRFR.

I recommend the program use the shear and the stiffener spacing on the side of the support that is being checked rather than the shear from one side and the stiffener spacing from the other side.


FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 12/2/2009 11:45:31 AM Eastern Standard Time

Issue referred to above is 9582


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/2/2009 1:16:58 PM Eastern Standard Time

I interpret this as an enhancement request.


FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 12/2/2009 4:21:02 PM Eastern Standard Time

While I haven't seen the numbers for myself, it sounds like a bug the way Beckie describes it. If the shear is different on each side of the support, the capacity for each side needs to be calculated. If the stiffener spacing is different on each side of the support, it stands that if the capacity depends on the spacing, then the capcity is also different on each side. You can't compare the capacity based on the stiffener spacing on one side of the support with the shear on the other side.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/2/2009 5:06:48 PM Eastern Standard Time

I would consider this as an enhancement since BAR7 is implemented as-is. I don't think BAR7 will consider stiffener spacings when determining the shear capacity. We are checking on how BAR7 handles the situation described above.


FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 12/3/2009 10:15:32 AM Eastern Standard Time

Herman, good point about BAR7. Thanks.


FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 12/3/2009 3:21:23 PM Eastern Standard Time

Does anyone know what Virtis LRFR will do?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/3/2009 3:26:48 PM Eastern Standard Time

We are currently working on the Virtis LRFR Engine steel module for the 6.2 Release. We will pay attention to what described above during the development.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 12/3/2009 4:15:29 PM Eastern Standard Time

I agree with Beckie about using the stiffener spacing at the side of support where the shear capacity is calculated. This is a shortcoming of BAR7 which was implemented in Virtis Std Engine as received from PennDOT for steel girders. This needs to be corrected, but it would be an enhancement for Virtis Std Engine.


Incident 9588   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement to Structure Export

Status Suspended

Submitted By Horton, Doug

Date Submitted 12/8/2009 2:44:26 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Doug Horton DATE: 12/8/2009 9:50:04 AM Eastern Standard Time

The current export does not include the multimedia links for the structure. Thus, if structures are manually exported and transferred, the multimedia links are not maintained.

The current export also does not include links to Pontis if the user has a combined database (as does Virginia).


It would be very beneficial and time saving if the above could be implemented as options (or default settings) for the export process.


Virginia would be interested in assisting with the cost of adding the above features, assuming it is not extremely high.


FROM: Doug Horton DATE: 10/13/2010 12:16:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This request is indeed an enhancement, however it was my understanding that an estimate was going to be prepared and provided to VDOT and the Task Force. As previously noted, we have over a thousand files that have links to Pontis and multimedia attached. When we upgrade to a new version, say 6.2, we will not have any method of transferring the links.


Please reopen this and provide the estimate requested.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/15/2010 12:04:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time

We are preparing an estimate for this enhancement. The estimate will be presented to VDOT and the Task Force in the TF Meeting at the end of October.


When migrating a combined database to a new version using the Migration Wizard, the Pontis and multimedia links will not be affected during the database migration.


Incident 9589   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Modification to Multimedia file selection default

Status Suspended

Submitted By Horton, Doug

Date Submitted 12/8/2009 2:50:22 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Doug Horton DATE: 12/8/2009 10:02:27 AM Eastern Standard Time

The multimedia dialog for linking a file currently defaults to jpg files. This is reasonable since pictures are usually what are added. There are many times however that documentation files are added for easy reference. In Virginia they are generally pdf files. If the default was set to all files, then the selection would not have to be resset each time an attachment is made to a structure.


We would suggest that all files become the default, and, if possible, the chosen document type set for the first link would stay active for the whole session. In other words, if we picked pdf files on a structure and then followed with several other structures, pdf would be the default for every structure until the user logs out.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/17/2010 9:10:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Requested by TF and TAG during 6.2 Beta Testing to set default filter to "All Files". Done for 6.2 Release.


The enhancement request is to use the chosen document type set for the first link as the subsequent default.


Incident 9606   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Enhance Virtis Std Engine Girder Dead Load input form

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 12/22/2009 6:19:59 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/22/2009 1:20:46 PM Eastern Standard Time

Submitted on behalf of George Huang, Caltrans.


Received Bridgeware e-mail:

==========================================================================

Hi Jim,


I'm not sure what's the logic and necessity to limit the concentrated load to 99.999. I hope this limit to be modified. Thanks.


George




"Bridgeware,"


rcorp.com> To

Murugesu Vinayagamoorthy

12/22/2009 06:16

AM v>

cc

George Huang


Subject

RE: Possible Error within Virtis

LFD


Hi Vinacs,


Virtis Std Engine requires those DC2 concentrated loads to satisfy the XX.XXX input format (see Page 5-6 in the Virtis Std Engine User Manual).

The Py loads entered for the "Copy of Interior Steel Girder (1966) 11/09"

exceed this input format.


Herman Lee


-----Original Message-----

From: Murugesu Vinayagamoorthy [mailto:murugesu_vinayagamoorthy@dot.ca.gov]


Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 6:47 PM

To: Bridgeware,

Cc: George Huang

Subject: Possible Error within Virtis LFD



Hi


We have placed additional concentrated loads (Load Case 2) using member load GUI.


When we tried to analyze the bridge using VirtisLFD engine the following error popped up. (BRASS LFD continued to analyze the bridge)


Could you please let us know what causes for the VirtisLFD program to terminate the analysis.


(Embedded image moved to file: pic26484.jpg)


Here is the bridge is attached for your information.


Structure Name: Copy of Span 2 (model 1) 11/09 Member Name: Copy of Interior Steel Girder (1966) 11/09


(See attached file: 29 0204L.xml)


Vinacs M Vinayagamoorthy

Senior Bridge Engineer

916-227-8657

==========================================================================



FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 5/11/2010 1:10:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time

See work around tab


FROM: George Huang DATE: 4/20/2011 10:50:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time

It has been resolved in AASHTO LFD engine.


Incident 9615   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Prestressed Beam Results

Status Suspended

Submitted By Curtis, Beckie

Date Submitted 1/8/2010 9:28:57 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 1/8/2010 4:34:43 PM Eastern Standard Time

In G7 of span 1 or 4 (JN 90115) Virtis gives 1.002 for rating of HS-20 at 60% and Brass gives 1.297. This is a prestressed beam, fairly short span with only four prestressing strands.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 1/9/2010 10:00:24 PM Eastern Standard Time

Virtis Std Engine uses flexural strength reduction factor k (AASHTO Manual 6.6.3.3) when Phi*Mn is less than 1.2 times cracking moment M*cr. BRASS Engine doesn't use flexural strength reduction factor.


If you would like us to investigate further, please narrow down the difference to the point that the rating diverge so we can provide more specific help.


FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 1/11/2010 9:34:33 AM Eastern Standard Time

But we are at or over the phi*Mn=1.33*Mu, so k should be near or at 1.0, and the capacity should not be reduced. This is in MBE 6B.6.3.3 and AASHTO LFD 9.18.2.2


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 1/12/2010 4:57:50 PM Eastern Standard Time

Virtis Std Engine does not check for provision of AASHTO LFD 9.18.2.2. It was set to conform to AASHTO 1996 LFD Specs. 1996 LFD specs did not have a waiver of Article 9.18.2.1.


Can you provide some backup calculations to your statement "But we are at or over the phi*Mn=1.33*Mu, so k should be near or at 1.0, and the capacity should not be reduced."?


FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 1/12/2010 5:40:00 PM Eastern Standard Time

Using HS-20 truck at 40%:

Mu = 1.3*(164.61+16.5)+2.17*(274.37) = 830.82 k*ft


phi*Mn = 1022.45k*ft per detailed rating output


k=phi*Mn/(1.33*Mu) = 1022.45/(1.33*830.82) = 0.93, which I believe is higher than


So the revised nominal moment capacity is 950k*ft, giving you a rating factor of 1.2 (instead of the 1.32 that you would have had if you chose to ignore k).


Even if this isn't added to Virtis Std Engine, I feel it should be an option (off or on) for the Opis LFR.


FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 1/12/2010 5:42:29 PM Eastern Standard Time

Revising:

So the revised nominal moment capacity is 950k*ft, giving you a rating factor of 1.2 (instead of the 1.32 that you would have had if you chose to ignore k and more than the 1.014 that Virtis STD is giving).


Even if this isn't added to Virtis Std Engine, I feel it should be an option (off or on) for the Opis LFR. It makes a bigger difference for my legal/overloads at operating level.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 1/13/2010 2:28:52 PM Eastern Standard Time

I agree that there should be a user option to use or not to use the reduction factor k per MEB 6.6.3.3, but I am not sure if you can check the provision of AASHTO LFD 9.18.2.2 by taking a ratio of phi*Mn/(1.33*Mu). In a rating analysis, Mu is a function of the live load being rated where the rated load is equal to the rating factor times the rating vehicle. In any case, either adding an option for k or checking AASHTO LFD 9.18.2.2 will be an enhancement to Virtis Std Engine. The provision of LFD 9.18.2.2 is more of a design specification rather than a rating specification.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 1/14/2010 7:58:43 AM Eastern Standard Time

Hasmukh checked with PennDOT. PennDOT PS3 does not check for the provision of 9.18.2.2. Category changed to Enhancement.


Incident 9638   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject GFS Systems: Girders rating extermely low. Virtis appears not to be analyzing girder as a GFS system where the floorbeams act as concentrated loads on the girder.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Walsh, Joanne

Date Submitted 2/9/2010 9:42:08 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Joanne Walsh DATE: 2/9/2010 4:54:13 PM Eastern Standard Time

Bridge description: multispan girder-floorbeam-stringer viaduct (upperdeck and lowerdeck) with steel bents. The Virtis model will analyze each span as a simple span.


Issue: The inventory rating factors for the girders in our GFS model are extremely low (0.44 to 0.60). There is no major section loss to the girders and the structure was designed for HS-20 loading. The live load moments produced by Virtis were checked against Table C6B-1 of Appendix C6B of the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE). MBE Table C6B-1 provides simple span truck moments for a beam bridge based upon truck and span length. The live load moments produced by Virtis and the moments from MBE Table C6B-1 were very close which indicates that Virtis analyzed the girder under a simple span condition (this is also evident by the shear diagram in Virtis) and not by transferring the live load through the stingers then to the floorbeams and then into the girders at concentrated loads from the floorbeam. The girder has floorbeams framing into it at the 1/3 points. We believe a simple span analysis is overly conservative and the reason for the low rating factors. Can you please confirm the methodology used by Virtis in applying the loading on girders in a GFS system? Is there any way that Virtis can analyze the girder under the actual loading condition of a GFS system were the floorbeam reactions are concentrated loads on the girder? Please review the model titled "Squared Span 41" (see attached .xml).


Please feel free to contact me at bdartista@hntb.com. Any insight you can provide on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and effort.


FROM: Joanne Walsh DATE: 2/18/2010 10:01:00 AM Eastern Standard Time

Any update? I am not able to continue to work on this project until this issue is resolved. Thank you.


FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 2/19/2010 2:08:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

TO Brian Goodrich


Hi Brian,


The enclosed VI incident #9638. Joanne Walsh is asking for specifics on how the floor system is analyzed. I think she is right in her assessment. She is using BRASS in her analysis. I don't think there is a work around to do as she wants. Can you confirm this for me. If there is no work around, I will inform her that we will keep the issue open for User Group consideration as an enhancement.


George


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 2/22/2010 8:57:35 AM Mountain Standard Time

With respect to the BRASS engine, the live loads are NOT applied to the girder through the floorbeam reactions. I don't know of any workaround.


Have other possibilities for the low rating been exhausted: dead loads, unbraced lengths, contraflexure locations, etc.?


FROM: Joanne Walsh DATE: 2/22/2010 1:59:22 PM Eastern Standard Time

Brian/George,


We pretty much have exhausted all of the other possibilities that would contribute to a low rating. From your discussion, it sounds like Virtis does not have the capability to accurately model a girder in a GFS system since the loading is not transmitted through the floorbeams into the girders. Can you please verify this? Is there another engine that has this capability? What is the timeframe on this possible enhancement commencing? I just want to know if it is work my time to wait for the enhancement or continue the rating by other means.


Please feel free to contact me at bdartista@hntb.com. Any insight you can provide on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and effort.


Benny D'Artista


FROM: Joanne Walsh DATE: 3/3/2010 9:11:25 AM Eastern Standard Time

Any update? I am not able to continue to work on this project until this issue is resolved. Thank you.


FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 4/13/2010 10:14:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Benny and Joanne,


I was reviewing issue #9638 today. I believe at this point there are no work around solutions for this issue. Right now it appears you will need to wait for an enhancement to be approved by members of the User Group and/or the BRIDGEWare Task Force. You may also want to work with Brian Goodrich to get the BRASS engine enhanced for your needs.


I will change the status of the issue to an Enhancement request.


If there is anything you wish to add to the discussion, please feel free to log into IssueNet.


- George Colgrove



FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 4/13/2010 10:15:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time

At this point we need to wait for direction from the User Group and the Task Force to include a resolution to this issue.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 4/18/2010 11:25:27 AM Mountain Daylight Time

The BRASS engine moves live loads across the girders in a GFS system as if they were those in a girder system. Live loads are not transferred to the girder at the floorbeam locations. However, dead loads are.


Running the HS20 truck and lane, BRASS gives an inventory rating of 0.86.


Incident 9655   

Folder /Support Center

Subject POI generator

Status Suspended

Submitted By Curtis, Beckie

Date Submitted 2/24/2010 1:44:13 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 2/24/2010 8:50:12 AM Eastern Standard Time

For parabolic reinforced concrete beams, there are a large number of cross-sections generated using the wizard. Often when we run the structure the number of cross-sections exported exceed the capabilities of the engine. In my opinion. the wizard should not create more cross-sections than can be analyzed with the program.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/24/2010 9:08:17 AM Eastern Standard Time

Separating bridge model dependency from analysis engines is one of the strengths in Virtis. This allows switching to another engine without changing the bridge data. I think the engine should check the limit and adjust the number of cross sections during the export process. Please let us know your comment.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/24/2010 9:47:28 AM Eastern Standard Time

Beckie's e-mail received on 2/24/2010:

=========================================

Sounds reasonable.


Beckie Curtis

Load Rating Engineer

MDOT - Construction and Technology Division Bridge Operations Unit

=========================================


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 5/12/2010 2:22:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Consider skipping in the export POI if change in rebar area less than certain amount and if location interval is less than a certain amount.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 5/12/2010 2:25:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Make sure this is included in the AASHTO LFR.


Incident 9713   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Pile Pattern Templates

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 4/7/2010 9:54:39 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/7/2010 5:55:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time

AI 2009-VO-088

More pile location patterns to select from, instead of using x-y coordinates.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 5/12/2010 2:34:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Consider something like the strand pattern window where pilse can be clicked on/off (within a predefined grid).


Incident 9802   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject AASHTO Engine: Report shear ratings in Rating Summary.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 4/26/2010 9:41:49 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/26/2010 5:42:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Scott Cavanaugh, HNTB [SCavanaugh@HNTB.COM].


Currently, only critical and moment ratings are reported in Rating Summary.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/9/2011 10:02:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time

As requested by the TAG (April 2011), change this request from Virtis Std Engine to AASHTO Engine.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/26/2011 12:50:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This is the New Detailed LFR Report in the scheduled Virtis 6.4 release in 2012.


Incident 9832   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Delete Data Sources from Virtis Opis - Enhancement Request

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 4/29/2010 3:43:39 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 4/29/2010 11:45:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I would like to see the ability to delete obsolete or otherwise unused data sources from showing up within the virtis opis application. One can do this by editing the registry, but this should be availalbe from the application. See VI-9822 for more information


Incident 9948   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Haunch Profile Panel To Be Improved

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 5/11/2010 4:03:53 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 5/11/2010 12:09:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time

After haunch data were entered under one haunch type, the data won't change (and should change) when chose different haunch types. This may cause data entry mistakes.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 5/11/2010 12:50:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Issue was entered during beta testing but this is the behavior the window has always had.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/11/2010 1:11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The Haunch Profile window behaves like this for a long time. For users that select the wrong type but enter the correct data, they would probably prefer the data still there when they change to the correct type. I changed the Category to Enhancement for now. If there are more requests, the data should be cleared when the type is changed.


Incident 9964   

Folder /Support Center

Subject NSG distribution factor

Status Suspended

Submitted By Curtis, Beckie

Date Submitted 5/12/2010 6:33:32 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 5/12/2010 2:34:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Enhancement to add multiple distribution factor ranges based on NSG analysis. Number of DF's exported would be a user input.


Incident 10083   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Floor Beams supported on main girder and substructure

Status Suspended

Submitted By Curtis, Beckie

Date Submitted 6/25/2010 1:42:54 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 6/25/2010 9:46:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I think this is an enhancement request, although if there is a work around it would be helpful.


We have some main girder/floorbeam structures. The abutments/piers are on a skew, but the floorbeams are perpendicular to the roadway. This causes some of the floorbeams to rest on both a support and the main girder. At the pier, the floorbeam may rest on both girders and the pier. I would like to be able to model these.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/25/2010 10:18:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The above girder/floorbeam configuration cannot be modeled in Virtis using floor system definition. An alternative is to model the girders and floorbeams individually in a floor line definition.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 4:07:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG May 2012 discussion:

10083 and 11104 should be combined.


Incident 10107   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Timber Pile

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 7/8/2010 1:19:41 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 7/8/2010 9:32:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Timber Pile needs to be added as a material type for substructure


Incident 10121   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis LRFR gives error

Status Suspended

Submitted By Curtis, Beckie

Date Submitted 7/14/2010 7:50:08 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 7/14/2010 3:51:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Message saying that I can't use HL-93 for inventory, operating and fatigue trucks.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/15/2010 2:48:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The Task Force would like this to be discussed further.

Changed Category to Maintenance.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 2:51:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Similar request for AASHTO LRFD Engine in Incident 11551.


Incident 10161   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Parapet Loads not being applied -

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 7/28/2010 4:40:23 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 7/28/2010 12:49:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I'm reviewing the analysis of a simple span, non-composite steel girder system bridge. And I noticed an odd warning/error message in the Virtis LRFR Log file.

It states that:


Warning - Tributary Area was selected for Stage 1 dead load distribution method on the Superstructure Loads window DL Distribution tab!

Warning - The Parapet load of a Parapet location entered on the Structure Typical Section window Parapet tab is zero!

Warning - The Parapet load will not be applied!

Warning - Tributary Area was selected for Stage 1 dead load distribution method on the Superstructure Loads window DL Distribution tab!

Warning - The Parapet load of a Parapet location entered on the Structure Typical Section window Parapet tab is zero!

Warning - The Parapet load will not be applied!


I've reviewed the parapet load and how it's applied and everything looks ok. So I'm trying to figure out why it is not being applied.

I have option "by Tributary Area" chosen.


If I try "transverse simple span" -


Warning - Simple Beam Analysis was selected for Stage 1 dead load distribution method on the Superstructure Loads window DL Distribution tab!

Warning - The Parapet load of a Parapet location entered on the Structure Typical Section window Parapet tab is zero!

Warning - The Parapet load will not be applied!

Warning - No load cases are specified for Stage 2 Model Span superstructure!


If I try "transverse continuous" option -

It fails even faster

Cannot compute deck dead load by continuous beam analysis!

11:46:31 AM - Line 9215 in source file .\DoGirderSystemStructDef.cpp.



So I guess I'm struggling figuring out why the parapet load isn't getting picked up correctly or why the Continuous Beam Option fails.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/11/2010 11:15:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time

When a dead load component on the typical section doesn't have any load distributed to the analyzed member, a message will be outputted to the analysis log.


The "Interior Rolled Girder W 27 x 114" member alternative is the Simple G2 member (first interior) in the "Single 41'-0" Span, 5 Girder System". When Tributary Area distribution is selected, both parapets don't have load distributed to the Simple G2 member. Two set of messages are outputted to the analysis log. When Simple Beam Analysis distribution is selected, the right parapet doesn't have load distributed to the Simple G2 member. One set of message is outputted to the analysis log.


The continuous beam analysis is not supported. Since the load distribution computation is performed in the domain, the AASHTO FE Engine needs to be implemented at the domain level in order to support the continuous beam analysis.


I'm changing the Category of this incident to Maintenance.



FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 8/31/2010 10:57:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Will the Parapets be applied at the deck concrete placement? Usually the parapets are placed after the deck has cured. You have used DC1 for the parapets. Should you use DC2? This would be the case if the parapets are placed after the deck is cured.


I added a DC2 load case for stage 2 and moved the parapet load to DC2. The parapet load was included in the loadings. I did not add any shear studs for the deck or the like and this maintained the non-composite section properties, even though it says composite section stage 2 in the drop down for the load descriptions.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 8/31/2010 1:51:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time

My Beta 5 has expired so I can not check this out. Will do with Beta 6. (My 6.1 doesn't do Steel Virtis LRFR).


I did check with Brass LFR and that does not work as described.

If I add a DC2 load case and assign the parapet loads to DC2

Exterior Girder still gets the entire parapet load

Interior Girder gets (5 girders) 2/5 of the parapet loads

So Brass LFR really gets messed up when you do it this way.


So at a minimum, this workaround would produce odd results with LFR. Long-term solution really needs to have the ability to uniformly distribute these loads to all girder lines and not just exterior girders.


These parapets are placed on cured concrete.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 9/7/2010 10:45:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Checked with Beta 6 - Brass LFR still gets all messed up doing this work around approach.

Still need a long-term solution.


Incident 10173   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Shear Stirrup Design Wizard for Prestress

Status Suspended

Submitted By Olsen, Jeff

Date Submitted 8/3/2010 3:21:58 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Jeff Olsen DATE: 8/3/2010 11:27:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Add a Shear Stirrup Wizard that computes a shear pattern for Prestressed Concrete Beams, similar to the Shear Stud Wizard for Steel Girders.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/10/2010 3:12:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Duplicate of Incident 4766.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/9/2011 4:57:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This is in the 6.3 Work Plan.


Incident 10179   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Multiple windows in Specification Check Window

Status Suspended

Submitted By Waheed, Amjad

Date Submitted 8/4/2010 6:09:15 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Amjad Waheed DATE: 8/4/2010 2:27:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Virtis 6.2 currently can not open multiple windows of Specification Check Windows. It will be desireable to be able to open multiple windows of specification check calculations side by side.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/10/2010 3:08:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time


Incident 10189   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Flange lateral bending stress as User Input.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ruby, Jeff

Date Submitted 8/11/2010 2:13:04 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 8/11/2010 10:27:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

As an enhancement is would be nice to be able to enter a user specified value for flange lateral bending stress, fl. Currently Virtis/Opis only calculates flange lateral bending stress for the wind load. Once Virtis/Opis can handle curved girders or large skews with 3D analysis, this will be taken care of. Until then, it would be nice to be able to input a flange lateral bending stress for use in the applicable equations. See Article 6.10.1.6 and commentary for reference.


Incident 10221   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Bent rebar issue #2 - enhancement request

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 8/26/2010 6:51:27 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 8/26/2010 2:52:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From one of my consultants (Souther):


With regard to entry of schedule-based bent reinforcement bas in reinforced concrete members:


The bent portion is not included as adding to the shear capacity in that region of the beam as it would be in the design of the beam. Virtis should be modified to include the bent portions in the shear resistance of RC beams.


An export file that can be used for this is “BentRebarIssues - 0760019 (6.2 Beta5).xml” (see earlier incident)


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 3:43:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG May 2012 discussion:

10778, 11128 and 10221 should be combined.


Incident 10223   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Selecting trucks in the Analysis Settings Dialog

Status Suspended

Submitted By Colgrove, George

Date Submitted 8/27/2010 11:35:55 AM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 8/27/2010 7:35:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time

In the Analysis Settings window, I would like to have the ability to click one truck, then press shift, and select another truck down the list which then highlights the trucks between the two clicks in the list. By clicking on the "Add to Permit" button, it will send all highlighted bridges.


The same would be true, by clicking on several trucks while pressing the control key on the key board. This will make this list work like most Windows software.


Incident 10238   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Wearing Surface Load Factor or Load Case

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 9/3/2010 5:14:25 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 9/3/2010 1:32:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Currently Brass will automatically set the load factor (gamma = 1.5) for wearing surface entered in the structure typical section. The MBE allows a gamma value of 1.25 to be used for field measured wearing surface. Thus, I believe, Brass should be using the load case assigned to the wearing surface. That way the wearing surface load case can be set to DC or DW depending on which load factor is appropriate. I understand that a member load could be added to get around the issue, but I believe that is a poor solution.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 9/3/2010 2:34:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Brian, is this an enhancement request?



FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 9/7/2010 4:10:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time

The BRASS export uses the factors that have been specified by the user. If none are specified, the factors default to those specified in the System Defaults window. I checked the factors library and found that 1.5 is the LRFR default for the DW load case. Please let me know if this addresses your issue.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 9/8/2010 9:10:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Changing the DW load factor could work for some bridges, but would not work for bridges that had a wearing surface and utilities for example. The MBE allows the 1.25 load factor for wearing surface only. The simplist solution is to define the wearing surface as a DC or DW load type depending on the user's situation (field measured or approximated, respectively). Technically the load type is DW. Again, a member load could be set up to use the DC load type to get what the user wants, but it seems silly when we have a tab set up for wearing surface specifically (girder system). I guess I would classify this as an enancement request for Brass or Virtis. Another solution, would be to add a drop down in Virtis that specifies if the wearing surface is field measured or not. Then the engine could use the appropriate load factor according to the MBE, Table 6A.4.2.2-1.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 9/8/2010 10:34:50 AM Mountain Daylight Time

Thank you for the clarification. This would be an enhancement to create another DW load factor for the utilities separate from the wearing surface. I will forward this issue to WYDOT for the BRASS side of things.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 9/17/2010 10:31:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Is Virtis planning to address this issue? I understand there are workarounds, but technically the DW factor is being reduced.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 9/17/2010 11:40:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I've tried the workaround by creating 2 different LRFR Libraries - the only difference is the DW factor.

And then I have to select which library I want to select.


This should be resolved via maintenance since this is in the current AASHTO Spec supported for Virtis and the MBE Spec.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/9/2011 5:03:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This is in the 6.4 Work Plan for the AASHTO LRFR Engine.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 7/2/2012 2:51:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Accepted for Virtis 6.4 Beta 2.


Incident 10272   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Virtis LFD Cb calculation - Steel Bridge

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 10/22/2010 8:19:16 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 10/22/2010 4:35:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I could not replicate Virtis's Cb values for partially braced members using the moment envelopes. Does Virtis use corresponding loading at the brace points? For more detail, I have a bridge with flexure problems at Bent 4 of a 4-span bridge. The unbraced length to the right is 25'. The left brace point is at Bent 4. The right braced point is at midspan. The left braced point is in a non-composite region. The right braced point is in the composite region. I am assuming Virtis uses stresses to calculate Cb since the section changes? Using the Moment envelopes, I get a Cb value of around 1.9 or 1.99 (G2) depending on some load factor assumptions for the HS20 Lane Load. Virtis LFD is maxed out at 2.3. I found similar issues with other trucks, but I think I matched the HS20 Truck Load. I have attached the bridge if you need it. Note that 6.2 matches 6.1.


FROM: Xinmei Li DATE: 11/1/2010 10:21:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Do you mean Virtis LFD or LRFD?


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 11/2/2010 1:23:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Virtis LFD. If you could tell me what Virtis is doing to get the Cb value at the 4.0 point for G2 and a HS20 Lane Load, that might clear up the issue. What's the M1, M2, f1 or f2 values for the Cb calculation?


I get from Virtis LFD.


@ 4.0 @ 4.5

MDL1 = -250.6 MDL1 = 172.2

MDL2 = -91.5 MDL2 = 87.7

MLL = -272.8 MLL = -75.2

M2 = 1037 M1 = 175

f2 = 38.9 f1 = 8.5 ==> Cb = 1.99


The above stresses are calculated for the bottom flange from factored loads. Full load factors were used for the MDL values at 4.5 which could be unconservative.


FROM: Xinmei Li DATE: 11/3/2010 9:23:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Hasmukh, can you take a look?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 11/4/2010 5:47:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Attached Virtis Std Engine G2 input and output files.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 11/5/2010 4:24:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Virtis Std Engine uses the equation Cb = 1.75 + 1.05(M1/M2) + 0.3(M1/M2)^2 where M1 and M2 are factored moments at brace points. These factored moments M1 and M2 are derived from the maximum unfactored DL1, DL2 and LL+I moments at braced points. These moments are not simultaneously occuring moments. The unfactored DL1, DL2 and LL+I moments as well as factored M1 and M2 moments are printed in the detailed output. The program does not use any factored stresses.


For section at 0.0 in Span 4, using M1 = -355.6 and M2 = 841.8 in the above equation, I get Cb = 2.246 which is the same as 2.25 reported by Virtis Std Engine. If you provide the calculations for the Cb value of 1.99 you are getting, I can check this futher.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 11/9/2010 10:01:42 AM Eastern Standard Time

The values I used are shown above. The first three values are service loads. M1 & M2 are factored using 1.3 for dead loads and 2.17 for live loads. M1 sign was changed to accomadate the Cb calculation. I also give the factored stress values. 1.99 was obtained by replacing M1 & M2 with f1 & f2, respectively. If you use M1 & M2, Cb is 1.94. M1 is the max factored load at Bent 4. You can't use a different load because that's the load that the section will be checked against. M2 was calculated by using the largest negative live load at the midspan of span 4. This will create the smallest Cb value. Some additional modifications to the load factors could be made at this location because of the change in sign, but I wanted to keep it simple. All of these loads are pulled directly from Virtis. I can't replicate your loads. Could give me a breakdown of your M1 & M2 loads. Note that I am checking the HS20 Lane loading only.


Plus, I could not open your .OUT file. Is there a way in Virtis to get the Cb calculations?


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 11/9/2010 1:44:39 PM Eastern Standard Time

As I stated earlier, Virtis Std Engine uses the equation Cb = 1.75 + 1.05(M1/M2) + 0.3(M1/M2)^2 limited to a value of 2.3, where M1 and M2 are the maximum (not simultaneous) moments at brace points. For Service Load method, these M1 and M2 are unfactored moments and hence the ratio of M1/M2 could be different. This may result in different values of Cb between Service Load and Strength Design methods. Virtis Std Engine uses the value of Cb calculated based on factored moments for both the Service Load and Strength Design methods (this is perhaps a shotcoming of Virtis Std Engine). You cannot use factored stresses for Cb calculations (that is not how it is specified in Table 10.32.1A)


Virtis Std Engine reports the values of M1, M2 and Cb (and some more intermediate results) when the user specifies the OUTPUT option A. If you want to see these detailed output values, double click on the G2-Plate_Girder.OUT file attached under the Documents tab in this incident.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 11/10/2010 4:23:47 PM Eastern Standard Time

I figured out how to get the "Detailed Rating Report". I thought "detailed output" was the most detail so thanks for pointing that out. So this is where I stand. For my case the factored moment at 4.0 is -1037 k-ft (I think it is obvious that this value must be used for M2 since this creates the highest stress on the bottom flange which is unsupported). The factored moment at 4.5 using the smallest live load value is 175 k-ft. The service loads used to get these values are provided above. Thus, the Cb value should be 1.94 with M1/M2 = 0.1688. I mentioned using factored stresses earlier because another program does exactly this when there is a section change along the unbraced length. I know this is not in AASHTO, but it does make some sense. The M1 & M2 values that Virtis is using seem to be incorrect, at least for this loading case. I do agree that Virtis should use different M1 & M2 values for ASD or service checks.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 11/12/2010 8:10:13 AM Eastern Standard Time

Using factored stresses for a compsite-noncomposite range does make sense, but it is not in the specs. I agree that for the Service Load method the program should use the unfactored moments for the M1/M2 ratio. If Virtis Std Engine needs to be changed, this should be approved by the Task Force.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 11/18/2010 7:19:03 AM Eastern Standard Time

Hasmukh, please confirm the M1 and M2 values used by the Virtis Std Engine.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 11/20/2010 7:49:18 AM Eastern Standard Time

I stand corrected. After a review of the source code, it is determined that Virtis Std Engine

uses the corresponding moments at brace points for the calculation of Cb and not the maximum

values as stated earlier. The factored moments M1 and M2 in the calculation of Cb are

based on the following moments occurring concurrently at brace points for a live load

position causing the maximum negative moment at x=0 in span 4.


BRACE POINT MOMENTS (UNFACTORED)

DL1M1 DL2M1 DL1M2 DL2M2 PLMX1 NLMX1 PLMX2 NLMX2

-250.6 -91.5 172.2 87.7 41.2 -272.8 20.6 232.6



BRACE POINTS UNBRACED BRACE POINT MOMENTS (FACTORED)

X1 X2 LENGTH M1 M2

196.00 221.00 300.00 -355.6 841.8


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 12/1/2010 11:30:01 AM Eastern Standard Time

I can't verify the corresponding moments, but they seem reasonable.


Based off the values you give (unfactored), the appropriate M1 and M2 values should be as follows.

M1 = 1.3*(-250.6 - 91.5)+2.17*(-272.8) = -1037 k-ft --> Bent 4 (Analysis point)

M2 = 1.3*(172.2 + 87.7)+2.17*(20.6) = 383 k-ft

You are showing the minimum negative moment at X1 and the maximum moment at X2. I believe this is only applicable for the top flange check at X2 or midspan and thus inaccurate since the top flange is fully braced. For the bottom flange check, we would want to find the maximum negative moment which creates compression in the bottom flange and the corresponding moments at the brace points. With this in mind for the Cb calculation, M1/M2 = 0.37 & Cb = 2.18. The resulting value is not far off, but it could make a big difference for other cases. I would like to make sure that Virtis LFD is doing this properly.


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 12/3/2010 1:36:14 AM Eastern Standard Time

As far as I can see Virtis Std Engine is calculating M1 and M2 properly. Since Brace Point moments are not reported in regular detailed output, I just turned the debug output to show these values. I have attached the detailed output for analysis point at Bent 4. I have defined the debug output for brace point moments at the top of the output. Have a look at CASE 2 - NEGATIVE LL+I MOMENT - CORRESPONDING SHEAR. See if this helps.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 12/17/2010 2:29:02 PM Eastern Standard Time

OK, here is what I am seeing. M1 was calculated from DL1M1, DL2M1 & PLMX1. M2 is calculated from DL1M2, DL2M2 & NLMX2. I would think M2 should be using PLMX2 (Moment at X2 corresponding to PLMX1). Thus, M1 = -355 & M2 = 382.6 & Cb = 2.3. The moment to be resisted with this Cb value would be -355 k-ft. I believe Case 2 is calculated correctly (I originally mixed NLMX1 & PLMX2 above. I was assuming incorrectly which values were corresponding). Is it the intent of Virtis to mix NL with PL to create the smallest Cb value? Is Virtis abitrarily applying the lowest Cb value calculated between the Cases, independent of the loading that is being checked? Case 1 is not corresponding loads, but is using corresponding loads as an envelope (My best guess?).


FROM: Hasmukh Lathia DATE: 12/20/2010 9:00:12 AM Eastern Standard Time

I agree that for Case 1 M2 should be using PLMX2. This needs to be looked at for future correction to Virtis Std Engine. Virtis Std Engine is calculating Cb for each case and using it for calculating moment strength that is to be used to calculate the moment rating for that case.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 12/20/2010 2:03:53 PM Eastern Standard Time

If the corresponding loading issue above is fixed, I would consider this issue resolved.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/23/2010 8:51:49 AM Eastern Standard Time

We have notified PennDOT of this issue.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/9/2011 5:07:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

To be discussed in June TF Meeting Agenda Item 7.b.ii.


Incident 10304   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Virtis Std Engine - remove Strand Grid requirement for P and cgs strand entry

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kennelly, Krisha

Date Submitted 11/23/2010 5:21:43 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 11/23/2010 12:22:13 PM Eastern Standard Time

Submitted on behalf of George Huang via email:


The another difference between two engines is that Virtis LFR engine requires "Strand Grid" to be specified in "Beam Shapes", even only the "P and CGS" option is used in "Strand Layout", while BRASS engine does not require "strand grid" information if "P and CGS" option is used.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 11/23/2010 12:23:07 PM Eastern Standard Time

For P and CGS description, Virtis Std Engine requires the input of the vertical distance to the first row of strand in the “PRESTRESSING AND ECCENTRICITY” command. I don’t know the reason behind. This could be entered as an enhancement request for the Std Engine.


============================

DIST TO FIRST ROW

Enter the C.G. of the bottom most row of strands measured from the bottom of the beam in inches. Leave this blank if the strand pattern is entered.

============================


Incident 10315   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Generic Deck is not allowing a rating to be done for NSG

Status Suspended

Submitted By Colgrove, George

Date Submitted 12/1/2010 6:15:42 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 12/1/2010 1:31:24 PM Eastern Standard Time


If someone wanted to model a bridge with a steel plate deck over tightly spaced girders (see attacted bridge - without a number) they can still rate the bridge with standard live loads.


However, rating with a NSG truck you get the following: The NSG truck is included in the Documents tab.


Unable to generate model.

01:30:54 PM - Line 1823 in source file .\AbxVirtisDistFactEngine.cpp.


Unable to generate girder system finite element model.

01:30:54 PM - Line 576 in source file .\AbxVirtisDistFactModelGen.cpp.


Unable to generate model.

01:30:54 PM - Line 1700 in source file .\AbxVirtisDistFactModelGen.cpp.


Unable to generate model.

01:30:54 PM - Line 3221 in source file .\AbxVirtisDistFactModelGen.cpp.


------------------------------


Non-standard gage analysis failed!

01:46:21 PM - Line 15826 in source file .\UiAnalysisProgressDlg.cpp.


------------------------------


Retrieving engine specific settings for controlling output and model generation...

Maximum number of nodes for in-memory storage of results reset to 2000.

Generating advanced analysis finite element models...

Generating 3D finite element model for superstructure...

Generating beam elements for the girders/stringers...

Generating 2D finite element models for each girder/stringer...

Deck material must be defined for analysis to run!


Analysis failed!


------------------------------


So I recreated the bridge model, but instead of a steel plate bridge, I put in a concrete deck. (see Sand_Creek_2) Everything else was the same. The bridge ran through a rating without a problem.


The last error on the list above was "Deck material must be defined for analysis to run!". I think the way a steel plate deck is defined (i.e. Generic) is not being registered correctly.




FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/1/2010 2:04:28 PM Eastern Standard Time

This is an enhancement request for supporting modeling of generic deck in NSG Analysis.


Incident 10332   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Unable to retrieve vehicles for Shear Stud Wizard.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Warner, David

Date Submitted 12/17/2010 5:41:11 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 12/17/2010 12:42:01 PM Eastern Standard Time

Submitted on behalf of David Warner, Montana DOT.


Currently, the Shear Stud Wizard uses the HL-93 and LRFD Fatigue Truck in the Standard Library. The Shear Stud Wizard should recreate these vehicles at runtime instead of searching in the library since the ID for identifying these vehicles may be different than what the wizard expected.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/6/2011 3:15:53 PM Eastern Standard Time

From the Jan. 2011 Task Force Meeting draft minutes:

6f. The Task Force directed the Contractor to develop a mockup and estimate for vehicle selection for use with all design tools.


Incident 10339   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject LRFR - Stinger, Floorbeam, Girder System - Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 12/28/2010 2:46:03 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 12/28/2010 9:47:54 AM Eastern Standard Time

I thought all Steel would be ready for LRFR in 6.2, but I noticed that one can not compute LRFD/LRFR live load distribution factors for Stringer, Floor Beam, Girder Systems. And LRFR is not even an analysis option for these structure types.


I guess this needs to be added as an enhancement.


Incident 10371   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Column Reinforcement Screen

Status Suspended

Submitted By Howells, Russell

Date Submitted 1/19/2011 2:59:59 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Russell Howells DATE: 1/19/2011 10:02:15 AM Eastern Standard Time

In the column reinforcement screen it would be helpful to be able to see the same information that is provided in the “Generate Pattern” screen. This information includes the following:


• Section selected for the reinforcement

• Reinforcement Bar Size

• Clear Cover


This information is required in the checking process and appears to only be verified by checking the geometry in a spreadsheet to verify these dimensions. The problem is that when the user clicks on the “Generate Pattern” button, the new window does not have any of the information that was used to generate the current pattern.


Please do one of the following to provide easier user interface:


1. When the “Generate Pattern” button is clicked, the information used to generate the existing pattern is saved and displayed. The user can then modify that data as required to modify the existing pattern or to generate a new pattern.


2. Provide this information in the column reinforcement window.


Incident 10381   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Support symmetry for Trusses

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 1/21/2011 2:51:09 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 1/21/2011 9:53:33 AM Eastern Standard Time

It was found while investigating deck-through trusses for AL DOT that the symmetry command always generates pinned supports. It would be useful to change this behavior by removing the generation of support conditions from the symmetry routine. The user should be able to define all of the support conditions and the symmetry command should not generate support conditions.


Incident 10392   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Floor Line Superstructure Floorbeam Fails to Run in Virtis 6.2

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 1/25/2011 3:04:41 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 1/25/2011 10:06:29 AM Eastern Standard Time

From my consultant (Souther):


The attached export (FlbmRunFails_(0810040)-v6.2.xml) contains a Floor Line Superstructure with a floorbeam that generates the following error:


Error generating LFD/ASD schedule commands!

01:01:08 PM - Line 203 in source file .\BrassStdSchedules.cpp.


Unable to determine transverse stiffener groups at start and end of range!

Possible cause: One or more stiffeners exist at the same location.

01:01:08 PM - Line 1292 in source file .\EngineExport.cpp.


Error generating STIF-TRAN-SCHEDULE or STIF-TRAN-GROUP commands!

01:01:08 PM - Line 609 in source file .\BrassStifTranScheduleGroupCmd.cpp.


No reason for the error has been discovered. Since I did have results recorded for the floorbeam when it was originally created in March 2010 under Virtis v. 6.1, the problem may be related to program modifications for v. 6.2.


Tim Souther, PE

%IDOT Bridge Ratings Unit

(217) 785-2935

timothy.souther@illinois.gov


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 1/25/2011 3:49:47 PM Mountain Standard Time

The BRASS export is trying to create a transverse stiffener schedule for spans 1 and 3. As part of another incident, the BRASS export was revised to create schedules for spans that don't have stiffeners. For these, the bearing stiffeners were used to populate the stiffener group. However, floorbeams do not have an input for bearing stiffeners. There is basically no way to populate the stiffener group when the span contains no stiffeners. The workaround is to add a stiffener range for spans 1 and 3.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 1/26/2011 10:43:51 AM Mountain Standard Time

E-mail from Herman:


I reviewed the incident and concluded with the following two enhancement requests.


1. Enhance BRASS LFD Engine for handling the case that not all the spans have transverse stiffeners.

And/or

2. Enhance Virtis for allowing input of bearing stiffeners for FS floor line and floor system superstructure definitions.


Herman



FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 1/26/2011 10:44:25 AM Mountain Standard Time

BRASS LFD will run even if the stiffener schedules are missing for a span. We need to either 1) provide input for bearing stiffeners for a floorbeam and then require this input or 2) we revise the export to not generate transverse stiffener schedules for spans without transverse stiffeners. We had been doing option 2 for girders until users requested that we use the bearing stiffeners.


FROM: Brian Goodrich DATE: 1/26/2011 1:22:26 PM Mountain Standard Time

E-mail from Herman:


Seems like we need special treatment for floorbeam. Anyway, it’s up to WYDOT to decide whether to enhance BRASS export based on option 2 for floorbeam. Please log option 1 in the incident for Virtis enhancement.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/12/2012 3:02:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Option 1: provide input for bearing stiffeners for a floorbeam

Changed Category from Enhance BRASS to Enhancement.


Incident 10471   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Adding database conversion option to setup

Status Suspended

Submitted By Colgrove, George

Date Submitted 2/25/2011 1:02:29 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 2/25/2011 8:03:39 AM Eastern Standard Time


We should add the database conversion step to the install process. Once the software is installed, the installer should ask the user if they want to update the database. If they do, the database manager should pop up allowing the user to update the database at the point of install. Very good if the install is for a single machine install.


Incident 10481   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Analysis results be put in table form

Status Suspended

Submitted By Colgrove, George

Date Submitted 2/28/2011 3:32:02 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 2/28/2011 10:32:08 AM Eastern Standard Time


From Bradley T. Jones PE, Bridge Engineer, KORDA:


I’d like to suggest that the analysis results be put in table form too. I figured out how to do the printing last week. You can also print out the analysis results using the same procedure, however, in order to print out the analysis you have to print out each separate DL and LL condition for each Limit State. That was a little too cumbersome but it can be done. It would be nice if that was included in a results output.


Brad


Incident 10503   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Eccentric Axial Rating for Truss Member in Virtis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 3/1/2011 10:30:30 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/1/2011 5:31:27 PM Eastern Standard Time

Submitted on behalf of George Huang, Caltrans.


Received e-mail:

============================================

Hi Dean,


Finally we tested the new function of "Eccentric Axial Rating" for truss member in Virtis. We analyzed a simple span truss using Virtis (see attached file "Bridge.30C0016.xml") and compared the results with our previous rating results. I discussed some of our findings with Herman Lee, and Herman created VI 10459 to correct one mistake where the secant formula was used for both compression and tension members, and should be for compression only. However the bigger issue here is that the rating equation used in Virtis based on AASHTO MBE is too conservative and even wrong in my judgment.


The controlling rating member is top cord U2U3 for this truss bridge. I attached the file "Truss_Capacity.xlsx" to show the capacities from different equations for top cord U2U3.


Virtis calculates the capacity due to eccentricity by dividing 0.85APcr with the Delta_A from MBE Appendix 16A (eq. 16A-1, page 6-75). The operating capacity from Virtis is 182.6 Kips (Cell F23), the inventory rating is -0.029 (Cell 21) and operating rating is 0.48 (Cell 22). The different signs between inventory and operating ratings are due to different capacities using different Pu in Delta_A.


The capacity equations used by Caltrans are based on P-M interaction (eq.

10-155) from AASHTO Standard specification, which are the same equations recommended in the "AASHTO Guide Specifications for Strength Method of Truss Bridges (Load Factor Design) 1985". Based on this equation, the capacity is 218.99 Kips (Cell J18), which is about 20% larger the operating capacity from Virtis. The inventory and operating ratings are 0.258(Cell 21) and 0.438(Cell 22).


The page 1 of file "ELoad.pdf" shows some background of Virtis and MBE equations. Eq. 1 is the basic equation from the basic beam theory. Eqs 2 and 3 are the equations used in Virtis. The rating equation used in Virtis is too conservative due to the following facts:


1) Sigma_max in Eq 1 is the maximum allowable stress not only due to the axial force, but also due to the bending moment. The stress, 0.85 Fcr, is usually for axial load only. However Virtis is conservatively using this stress for the combined stress.


2) The capacity P in Eq 1 depends on the applied axial force P. The capacity calculation has to be based on the iterations of P. However the MBE equation used in Virtis, use the fixed and different combined factored dead load and live load for inventory and operating ratings to calculate different Delta_A (Eq 3) and to get different capacities (Eq. 2). Due to the larger for Fu, the calculated capacity is smaller for Inventory rating than that for operating rating. That's why the rating factor for member

U2U3 of the testing bridge is negative for inventory rating, while the rating factor for operating rating is positive. These capacities, P, will be too small for weak member since the Pu is much larger than P, and could be too large for some very strong member if Pu is much smaller than P. This is a wrong approach.


3) The secant equation (Eq 3) is based on the idealized pined end conditions with no modification for L. However the member length "L" in most equations in the Specifications can be modified as KL to consider the actual boundary condition, such as K=0.875 is used for pined ends in the calculation of Fcr.


The eccentric axial rating method used in Virtis is too conservative. With this approach, States may not be able to use Virtis to get reasonable ratings for truss members with eccentric axial loads. My recommendation is to used the beam-column equations 10-155 from AASHTO LFD Standard Specification. On page 2 of the file "ELoad.pdf", I showed an example for possible revised delta equation to replace the current equation. This equation is based on the assumption Mu=My, and iteration has to be used to calculate the correct Delta. If different Mu is used, the formula will be different.


Let me know if you need more information. Thanks.


George Huang

Senior Bridge Engineer

Bridge Rating and Analysis Branch

Division of Structures Maintenance

MS 9 - 1/9I

============================================



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/9/2011 5:24:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time

As requested by the TAG (April 2011), change Category to Maintenance.


Incident 10681   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Designing for a permit vehicle using Service III limit state

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crudele, Brenda

Date Submitted 4/12/2011 5:35:01 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Brenda Crudele DATE: 4/12/2011 2:02:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In New York State we are required during design to check a design permit vehicle for strength II as well as for the Service III limit state with an increase stress limit - prestress bridges only.


The AASHTO Engine does not seem to be able to accomplish this. There is no place to choose a specific limit state to be run. It also doesn't allow the user to choose the same vehicle for the design and permit vehicle.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 4/26/2011 10:41:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time

In 6.4 users will be able to select the Limit States they want to have considered in the LRFD analysis. Maybe this request should be incorporated into that new feature if the TF agrees.


Perhaps this should go into the System Defaults somehow since you also want to increase the stress limit for this vehicle and limit state only and it is for prestressed bridges only.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/7/2011 8:32:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Switched Folder to /Support Center/Opis.


Incident 10700   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Exporting/importing analysis templates & system defaults

Status Suspended

Submitted By Waheed, Amjad

Date Submitted 4/12/2011 8:55:28 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Amjad Waheed DATE: 4/12/2011 4:58:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time

At this time, I do not know how to export or import analysis templates or system defaults, such as county names, Distrcits etc. We will like to export templates and defaults for consultants and non-DOT users.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/12/2011 5:05:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Exporting/Importing analysis templates and system defaults is a planned feature in the 6.4 release.


Incident 10727   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Member Loads Displayed Incorrectly in the Analysis Chart and Report

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crudele, Brenda

Date Submitted 4/13/2011 5:39:12 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Brenda Crudele DATE: 4/13/2011 1:58:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time

If a vertical point load is input in the member loads window, when the shear diagram for that load is viewed in the charts it should be a vertical line at the location of load. The shear force in the diagram goes up diagonally to the next POI. The program should automatically place a POI in the left and right side of a point load to account for this.


This is also true for an applied moment input under the member loads window.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 4/19/2011 8:37:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I confirmed this issue and am changing it to a "Release" issue since it is not new to this development cycle and has existed since the first release. BRASS LFD does not report two values of shear at a location for DL. Neither does the AASHTO engine. I am setting the category to "Maintenance". This issue has been discussed in the past.


Incident 10737   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Ratings for non controlling limit states are not shown

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crudele, Brenda

Date Submitted 4/13/2011 8:15:17 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Brenda Crudele DATE: 4/13/2011 4:24:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Only the controlling limit state for LRFR is shown. The ratings at all LRFR non-controlling limits states should be accessable somewhere.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/7/2011 8:35:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Switched Folder to /Support Center/Virtis.


Incident 10743   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Ignoring the Rebar Development Length for Deep Section Provision

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 4/13/2011 9:46:52 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 4/13/2011 6:01:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In the construction for RC-T-beam, the concrete for the lower part of the girder and top part of girder with deck might be poured separately with a web construction joint. The provision of longer development length for deep beam should not be applied to the top reinforcement. The option of ignoring the deep section provision need to be provided.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 4/19/2011 2:45:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time

George, What deep section provision are you referring to in the spec?


For LFD, Virtis uses the Std Spec Article 8.25.2.1 for a 1.4 factor for top bars placed with more than 12" of concrete below.


For LRFD, a similar article is considered.


12" doesn't seem very deep, is there another article you are referring to? Please view the Virtis help topic "Export of Schedule Based Reinforced Concrete Members" to see what articles are considered in computing the development lengths.


FROM: George Huang DATE: 4/19/2011 4:37:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Krisha, Std Spec Article 8.25.2.1 is the provision I refered to. I agree with you that 12" is not very deep, sorry for the confusion.


Incident 10777   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Analysis of Combined Axial Load and Bending

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 4/21/2011 4:26:40 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 4/21/2011 12:27:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In California, many old steel bridges were strengthened with adding post-tension cables to the steel girders. In order to correctly rate the bridge, the equations for combined axial load and bending in 10.54.2 of Standard Specification may have to be used. However the current AASHTO LFR engine doesn’t have this function. Please add this function in Virtis.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 4:11:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG May 2012 discussion:

Caltrans has 200 of these structures affected by this enhancement.


Incident 10778   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Bending and Shear Capacity for Bend Over Bars

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 4/21/2011 5:01:55 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 4/21/2011 1:11:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time

For many old RC bridges, the bend over bars are used for longitudinal reinforcement. In the current AASHTO LFR engine, the bend over bars are not used to calculate the shear and bending capacities at the bending location. We would like to have the option to include the bend over bar in the capacity calculation. The bridge file, 10C0163.xml, using bend over bars is included.


FROM: George Huang DATE: 4/21/2011 1:14:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time

By the way, similar discussions can be found in VI 8940.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 3:42:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG May 2012 discussion:

10778, 11128 and 10221 should be combined. Caltrans has 320 structures affected by this enhancement.


Incident 10876   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Enhancement request for System Factors

Status Assigned

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 5/17/2011 7:18:59 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 5/17/2011 3:30:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I think the user needs to be able to manually override the system factor value, instead of just selecting cases from a pull-down. For instance, the user may consider three girder bridges to be non-redundant and wants to use a system factor less than 1.0. In order to do that, the user must select an option from the pull-down that will give them the correct value. The rating may be correct, but this can cause confusion an unneccessary additonal work by users.


FROM: Xinmei Li DATE: 3/30/2012 2:21:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Resolved for next 6.4 Alpha build.


FROM: Matt Kolis DATE: 5/2/2012 11:17:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time

When using the Report Tool to create the BWS Report, consider adding a line to say "TRUE or FALSE" (in addition to a value) as to whether or not the System factor override box has been checked. See attached.


FROM: Srujana Thogaru DATE: 5/21/2012 5:50:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Report tool updated for 6.4 Beta 1


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 6/28/2012 4:47:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Override is working properly for analysis (Virtis 6.4 Beta 2). I have a suggestion. When override button is not checked, can the value be shown greyed out equivalent to the selection. This would make it clear to the engineer what value the pull-down selection will implement. Plus, I can enter an override, uncheck the box, select a different choice and the old override value remains. I think this might mislead users. If you implement my suggestion, the value shown would always be used in the analysis.




Incident 10933   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Live Load Scale Factor not applied in rating

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 6/7/2011 1:27:45 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 6/7/2011 9:45:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Scale factor is not being applied to the ratings. Factor appears to be applied correctly to the analysis charts and live load actions. Log file echoes the factor as well. AASHTO LFD. I did not check LRFR.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 6/7/2011 10:57:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I ran PCITB1 with and wo a scale factor. The ratings differed as expected. What do you mean when you say "Scale factor is not being applied to the ratings"? The factor is applied to the LL. That carries through to the ratings.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 6/7/2011 11:54:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time

After further investigation, the rating factors are Ok, but the tonnage calculated is incorrect. For some of my trucks the scale factor is ignored. For others, the calculation is incorrect. I am looking at the rating results summary. I found the same issue in the speck check, too.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 6/14/2011 10:10:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I found the same or similar issues with the Virtis LFD engine. I did not check AASHTO LRFR. The tonnage calculated should be the RF multiplied by the tonnage of the truck. What may be happening is that AASHTO is increasing the tonnage of the truck by the scale factor and then multiplying it by the rating factor. That's not the correct use of the scale factor and does not match Brass. The scale factor should allow you to get rating levels that are something different than Inventory or Operating. This needs to be fixed in order for MoDOT to use the AASHTO engines.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 6/14/2011 1:12:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Please refer to the Help for the Analysis Settings window. The scale factor is used to modify the weight of the axle loads and lane load. The example given in the Help is an HS-20 vehicle can be scaled by 25% to make it an HS-25 vehicle. The resulting RF multiplied by the scaled weight of the vehicle is the rating in tons.


Using Virtis LFR - I copied the HS-20 vehicle and changed the loads (axle and lane) in the vehicle definition by multiplying by 2.0 and ran it - run 1. I then ran the HS-20 vehicle scaled by a factor of 2.0 (on the Analysis Settings window) - run 2. The rating factors and rating tonnage match as they should since it the the same vehicle.


We did the same using BRASS. According to BRASS run 1 has twice the rating tonnage as run 1. The same vehicle cannot have different rating tonnage. Scaling the vehicle doesn't change the capacity of the bridge.


For what trucks is the scale factor ignored?


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 6/14/2011 2:30:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 6/14/2011 4:22:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Sorry, we have been using the BRASS scale factor for years to modify the operating rating to give us a posting tonnage. Since the report says Inventory or Operating, it makes sense that the tonnage would not change due to the scale factor. Personally, I think this makes the scale factor rather useless. I would think the HS25 case would be the only reason for this, and it's easier and less confusing to create an HS25 truck. We have a couple of trucks where we set the posting value to 86% of the Operating value. The scale factor is set to 1/0.86 = 1.1628. BRASS, then gives us the correct rating factor and posting tonnage. I cannot think of a workaround that we can use for the AASHTO engines.


FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 6/15/2011 9:39:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I've had a chance to review this incident, and if the purpose of the scaling factor is as Jim describes, then it sounds like it is working properly. The tonnage for a HS-20 truck or HS-25 truck shouldn't change, becasue the capacity remains the same in both cases. I can see where the scaling factor (as Jim describes) would be useful to HS-25 states because a HS-20 (or HS-25) truck is hard to model, with its variable axle spacing, lane load and otherwise tricky application to the structure.


That being said, I think MoDOT's need is very important and shared by the load rating community. I can think of at least two other states (I believe NYSDOT is one of them) that use a posting level somewhere between Inventory and Operating, and IDOT is considering going that way in certain situations. I suspect that other states are thinking similarly. Therefore, I would ask Jim to change this to an enhancement, and develop the enhancement after July 1 for consideration by the TF ASAP, perhaps the meeting after the UG meeting. IDOT will take the lead in funding it.


My guess is that BRASS was thinking differently than how Jim describes, and I would suggest asking Brian G. for clarification?


Tim


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 6/17/2011 9:12:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Agree with Tim.


FROM: George Colgrove DATE: 6/28/2011 7:08:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time

As per Tim Armbrecht and Aaron Kemna, this has been recategorized as an enhancement. I have set the status as suspended.


Incident 11044   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject PSC Shear Stirrup Wizard Problems

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 7/29/2011 2:36:25 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/29/2011 10:37:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Tim Armbrecht, IL DOT.


Please see attached PDF file for the e-mail with embedded graphics.

======================================================================

From: Souther, Timothy E

Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 11:24 AM

To: Armbrecht, Tim A

Subject: PSC Shear Stirrup Wizard Problems


Tim,

There are multiple problems with the shear stirrup wizard for prestressed beams in Virtis 6.3, which render it virtually unworkable for multi-span continuous PS I-beams. Refer to the Virtis model export, PSShearStirrupWizardProbs(0550052)-63.xml.

Stirrup Wizard Entry, A = 0.00 ft Start distance; B = 0.166667 ft Start distance:

A B

Then, here’s the result after is clicked:

A B

Applying the Stirrup Wizard deletes the existing stirrup reinforcement in all spans, even though it may be desired to do only one span. Also, the “Symmetry” selections applied to one span are automatically applied to all spans, which is totally unacceptable. It’s highly probable that, in the same continuous PS I-beam unit, “Even...” could be selected for one span and “Odd…” would be appropriate for another. This would make the Stirrup Wizard impossible to use for all spans. It is therefore essential that the program be modified to apply the Stirrup Wizard to each span separately.


Second, when “Extends to deck” is selected it applies to all stirrups, even though all stirrups may not extend into the deck. This should be like in the manual stirrup entry where it’s only selected for the applicable bars. Remove the global “Extends to deck” and replace it with an “Extends to deck” column to allow it to be selected or not for each entry.


Third, with regard to “Start Distance”, the operation of the Wizard is inconsistent with the way that stirrups are and have always been entered. When entering stirrups manually, there is and has never been a stirrup added at the Start location but only at the spacing specified to the right of it. Conversely, as can be seen in the screen shots of the two possible ways of doing “Start Distance”, when the Wizard is applied, the results are incorrect. In the example, when 0.00 is used, an extra G2 bar is placed at 0.00 and a 3/4” Thr Rods bar is placed at the very end. When 0.166667 is used for Start Distance, two 3/4” Thr Rods are placed at 0.166667. Both are erroneous and must be manually revised by the user. This is unacceptable. Make the Wizard work consistently with manual entry so that either way of entry yields a correct result.


Tim Souther, PE

%IDOT Bridge Ratings Unit

timothy.souther@illinois.gov

======================================================================



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/29/2011 1:50:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The Stirrup Wizard was added in Virtis/Opis 6.1.


- During 6.1 Beta testing, the TAG approved deleting all stirrups and the way the Symmetry button works.

- The original mockups had each row extending into the deck. The TAG decided to move it out and make it a global selection.

- From the Help, Start Distance - Enter the distance from the end of the precast beam to the first stirrup.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 4:05:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG May 2012 discussion:

10813 and 11044 should be combined.


Incident 11047   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Enhance for Concrete Shear Reinforcement Capacity with LFR

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 8/2/2011 4:37:53 AM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 8/2/2011 12:41:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The virtis LFD analysis engines (BRASS, Virtis and AASHTO) utilize the shear reinforcement spacing specified at the point of interest when establishing the shear capacity. This approach could result in lower capacity. We are requesting an enhancement to provide an "Advanced" option by which user could specify how the shear capacity contribution from shear reinforcement is calculated. When this advanced option is selected, software will first "count" the number legs crosses the 45degree diagonal shear failure line (instead of establishing the number by using d/s) and obtain the capacity. The Advance option should give the users to choose the vertical centroid location of the 45degree shear failure plane in section (ex. mid depth or top of the section). The shear plane should be drawn from the point of interest toward the closest support. The shear failure planes are shown in the attached file.


Incident 11050   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Rating Results Table created in Explorer - Enhancement Request

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 8/3/2011 5:46:58 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 8/3/2011 2:09:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This was suggested by one of our raters.

I would like to see an enhancement of the Rating Results from the Bridge Explorer. Currently when you run ratings for a bridges in the Bridge Explorer it generates the "Rating Results" Dialog Box with the controlling ratings for the bridge. It is desirable that the controlling structure and member be added to "Bridge Rating Results" and the "Structure Rating Results". Also I'd like to see the material type, girder type, control point and impact factor for each rating on those two dialog boxes and the "Member Rating Results" dialog box. This way the user does not need to open the file just to see what's controlling the rating.


Maybe some user control would be nice to determine what columns show up in these tables. Such as, removing LRFR columns for LFR ratings.


Incident 11054   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Prestressed Design Tool

Status Suspended

Submitted By Duray, Jim

Date Submitted 8/9/2011 7:37:23 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 8/9/2011 3:37:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From Jeff Olsen during the UG mtg:


This tool will ask for basic geometric and material parameters, then iterate a beam depth and strand pattern. It could use the beams that are copied into to the structure’s beam library for the iteration.


Incident 11084   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Dist. Factor LRFR Stripped Lanes

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 8/25/2011 11:05:31 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 8/25/2011 7:08:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Virtis currently uses Out to Out (curb to curb) to find LRFR Dist. Factors.

The MBE allows the use of stripped lanes for permitting, this will allow more capacity.

We need to add this feature (option) and take advantage of the MBE provisions.


Incident 11089   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Apparent AASHTO Engine LFD Moment Analysis Bug

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 9/1/2011 6:02:33 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 9/1/2011 2:05:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From my consultant (Souther):


There is a bug in Virtis LFD in which analysis of a 45.5’ long beam in a simple-span multi-beam WF Virtis model, made up of a 2.25’ length of W27x102 spliced to the remaining 43.25’ of B28x97, results in apparently erroneous results as compared to another beam identical except for being B28x97 for full length. In the attached model, the former is Member “3 - 2nd N Int-x” and the latter is Member “4 - 2nd S Int-y”. The Virtis v. 6.3 AASHTO Engine LFD analysis results are as follows:


Member Name: 3 - 2nd N Int-x

Member Alternative Name: B28x97/W27x102-Comp

Rating Capacity Location

Live Load Factor Controls (Ton) Span (ft) Percent

HS 20-44 Inventory 1.223 Design Flexure - Steel 44.04 1 13.65 30.0

Operating 2.043 Design Flexure - Steel 73.55 1 13.65 30.0


Member Name: 3 - 2nd S Int-y

Member Alternative Name: B28x97/W27x102-Comp

Rating Capacity Location

Live Load Factor Controls (Ton) Span (ft) Percent

HS 20-44 Inventory 1.380 Service - Steel 49.67 1 22.75 50.0

Operating 2.304 Service - Steel 82.94 1 22.75 50.0


Since the spliced 2.25’ end should have only a possibly very minor effect in the loads and structural characteristics in the overall beam, there should be very little difference in the ratings between the two members. Both beams should be controlled by Service or Flexure at the mid-point of the span. This is the case for AASHTO ASD and for both BRASS LFD and ASD. Since this is not the case for the AASHTO LFD analysis, there is apparently a bug in the AASHTO LFD analysis engine.


In addition, the Virtis 6.3 AASHTO LFD results showing Service to be the limit-state at the span mid-point for Member 4 - 2nd S Int-y is also questionable. Note that for the Virtis 6.2 BRASS LFD analysis the limit-state is not Serviceability but Flexural - Steel Strength and is 25% lower than the Service rating factors calculated by the AASHTO LFD engine. This also suggests a possible bug. One should also take note that rating factors for BRASS and AASHTO ASD analyses are comparable.


The Virtis v. 6.2 BRASS Engine LFD analysis results for the mixed-beam member are as follows:


Member Name: 3 - 2nd N Int-x

Member Alternative Name: B28x97/W27x102-Comp

Load Factor Rating Summary

Rating Capacity Location

Live Load Factor Controls (Ton) Span (ft) Percent

HS 20-44 Inventory 1.039 Flexural - Steel Strength 37.39 1 22.75 50.0

Operating 1.735 Flexural - Steel Strength 62.45 1 22.75 50.0


Also, while the apparent bugs reported here are for simple-span composite WF beams, they may also affect other bridge member types, such as plate girders, continuous and non-composite.




FROM: Wayne Skow DATE: 9/9/2011 10:39:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time


Aashto LFR appears to be working correctly.


Member "B28x97-Comp (Spliced End)" is laterally supported by diaphragms at two locations, 15.17 ft and 30.33 ft. The 30% location falls within the 1st segment (0.0 to 15.17 ft). Since this segment is made of two steel sections of different depths, the segment is no longer prismatic disqualifying it as a compact section (10.50.1.1.2 fails). This reduces the allowable causing the 30% POI to control with a lower RF. Compare the 30% location with the 70% location.


If you add another diaphragm at 3 ft making the section at the 30% POI prismatic once again, you get the result you're expecting.


Do you concur?


FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 9/23/2011 4:30:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time

My consultant's (Souther) response:


Technically, he is correct. The introduction of the slightly different 2.25’ end section does make the beam within the first bracing range non-prismatic. However, I’m not sure why we are concerned with diaphragm location in a simple span since the top flange is in compression full length and is continuously supported laterally by the deck. From a practical standpoint, it is obvious that the difference between the spliced end section (W27x102) and the remainder of the beam (B28x97) is minor and would have virtually no effect on the remainder of the beam and that the beam should be considered prismatic for its full length. Virtis should be modified to consider this beam as constant depth. In the meantime, the suggested workaround will produce the proper results.


There is another issue that’s somewhat unique to this beam, which answers the issue of Service controlling instead of Strength. Since the 30ksi Fy for the B28x97 section is less than 36ksi, plastic analysis does not apply (AASHTO ). When the “Allow Plastic Analysis” box is unchecked for either the B28x97 full length beams or the beams with the W27x102 spliced end, the control point is at mid-span with limit-state Strength. When the steel being used is less than 36ksi the default for this box should be unchecked in accordance with the AASHTO Standard Specifications. Perhaps we could get a procedure from Baker to apply this to our Virtis databases and a future enhancement to cause the appropriate setting based on the steel being used. I understand that some other states might want to allow plastic analysis regardless of steel type but the program should default to the Standard Specifications. This could also be an entry in our proposed global settings customization tables. When steel other than those listed in the first paragraph of 10.50.1.1, i.e., “(AASHTO M 270 Grades 36, 50, and 50W (ASTM A 709 Grades 36, 50, and 50W), and AASHTO M 270 Grade HPS70W (ASTM 709 Grade HPS70W)” plastic analysis should not be permitted. Since this is not complied with by the AASHTO Engine, it should be considered a bug in the program. That would be true even if the “Allow Plastic Analysis” box is checked. The operative word for that checkbox is “allow”. It should be understood that plastic analysis is allowed when the Std. Specs. allow it. It’s apparently being used to apply plastic analysis despite them.


FROM: Wayne Skow DATE: 9/28/2011 9:05:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The determination as to whether the section is prismatic or not and whether plastic analysis applies to a specific steel grade is based on multiple factors. Depth and Fy are only one factor in each of those cases. The exact determination in every practical situation involves more complexity than Virtis has been given. The user manages that through features and modeling. For example, 10.50.1.1’s steel grade list is not exhaustive and I don’t think 36 ksi is a specific limit.


At this point, I think Virtis is behaving according what is specified for 10.48.1.2 in the AASHTO LFR Engine Method of Solution (see attached).”


Incident 11104   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Enhancement to Stagger Stringers in Floor Truss Systems

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jones, Daniel

Date Submitted 9/16/2011 3:22:19 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Daniel Jones DATE: 9/16/2011 11:45:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time

This is a request for an enhancement to be able to have stringers staggered with the floorbeams.

The Word file (Stagger stringers) shows how the outside stringers usually are the same where as the middle stringer begins and ends at different floorbeams.


I have included some drawings showing how the typical floor truss system is built in Alabama.


Thanks,

Daniel Jones


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 4:07:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG May 2012 discussion:

10083 and 11104 should be combined.


Incident 11106   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Virtis Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Hasan, Mac

Date Submitted 9/20/2011 1:20:04 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Mac Hasan DATE: 9/20/2011 9:31:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time

AASHTO Standard Engine (version 6.3.0 or higher) needs capability to turn-off inventory level stress (i.e. prestressing steel tension, concrete tension or compression stresses) checks for Precast Prestressed Girder bridges.


This enhancement should help engineers compare/validate past rating results obtained using the Brass-engine.


Incident 11117   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Additional field for the vertical location of appurtenance

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 9/26/2011 1:57:13 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 9/26/2011 9:58:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Below request is moved from Incident 10821.


============================================

We should be able to enter the model so that the cross-section appears as on the plans without having to do a workaround. To this end, I propose that an additional field be added to specify the vertical position of the bottom of a parapet, median, railing, generic appurtenance and sidewalk. This would be entered under the applicable tab in the “Structure Typical Section” window. The default value should be set at 0.000”.


As an example of a bridge model with a parapet on curb, I’ve attached RC-Tee 1-sp(0260029)63B4.xml.


A typical case would be when there is a parapet, applied as a Stage 2 DL, on top of a curb that may be applied as either a Stage 1 or 2 DL. In order for this to appear correctly in the cross-section view, the parapet is described with a portion that extends from the deck surface to the top of the curb as having a zero thickness. Therefore, all of this portion is located at the point indicated for “Distance At Start/End” under the Parapet tab in the Structure Typical Section window.

============================================


Incident 11128   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Enhancement - Generate POI @ Stirrup Space Increase in Concrete Members

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 10/7/2011 2:09:34 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 10/7/2011 10:10:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Locations where shear stirrup spacing increases in RC & PS Concrete members should be considered as section change locations. Therefore, when under Control Options tab is selected, a POI should be generated there. For example, say we have stirrup bars “A”, “B” & “C” spaced 6” between A & B and 12” between B &C. This program enhancement would result in a POI being generated just to the right of stirrup B.


The benefit of this will be a substantial reduction of user input time by eliminating the need to manually enter many necessary POI’s.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 3:43:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG May 2012 discussion:

10778, 11128 and 10221 should be combined.


Incident 11129   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Enhancement: LLDF Computation for Non-splayed Girders

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 10/7/2011 2:11:08 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 10/7/2011 10:15:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time

It is understandable in a steel or concrete girder system with some splayed girders that live-load distribution can’t be computed for the girders affected by variable spacing. However, when attempting to have Virtis compute the LLDF for beams not affected by the variable beam spacing an error message is produced.


Since the spacing for the girder in question is not variable, there should be no reason that the LLDF could not be computed by the system.


I propose that Virtis be modified so that the LLDF may be computer generated. For reference see LLDF_Comp_Splayed-bm_Bridge(0220108).xml. The girders that would be subject to this enhancement are #5 through #14.


Incident 11147   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Library / Agency Std. Gage Vehicle Problems

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 10/25/2011 11:39:57 AM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/25/2011 7:40:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Tim Armbrecht, IDOT.


======================================================================

RE: Save/Delete Problems with Agency Standard Gage Vehicles (use export: VehStdGageAgcy.xml in O:\Ratings\Unprotected\Souther\v. 6.3)


When attempting to create a new Standard Gage Agency Vehicle, upon using the Save command a message comes up


Save operation failed: Vehicle

09:42:46 AM - Line 493 in source file VehView.cpp.

Assignment of data to recordset variables failed.

09:42:46 AM - Line 787 in source file DmLibVehicleAxle.cpp.

Key attribute AXLE_ID in table ABW_LIB_VEHICLE_AXLE is not set properly.

09:42:46 AM - Line 1009 in source file DmObject.cpp.


This does not happen if no axle information is input for the vehicle. In either case, the named vehicle then appears in the Library list of Agency vehicles but with no axle information.


For an existing vehicle if any change is made and is saved, the previously existing axle information is eliminated. In addition, if any changes to axle information or vehicle name are attempted to be saved, the above “Save operation failed” message appears or the following message appears:


Unable to save Vehicle data!

10:07:05 AM - Line 506 in source file VehView.cpp.


Some vehicles cannot be deleted. One example from the attached Library export is the vehicle named, “120K - 6 Axle”. When I attempt to delete it the following message comes up:


Error deleting record from database record set.

10:16:06 AM - Line 298 in source file DmLibVehicle.cpp.

State:23000,Native:547,Origin:[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server] State:01000,Native:3621,Origin:[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]

State:23000,Native:547,Origin:[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]

State:01000,Native:3621,Origin:[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]


The DELETE statement conflicted with the REFERENCE constraint "R_1552". The conflict occurred in database "RATINGS", table "dbo.abw_results_ll_action", column 'll_vehicle_id'. The statement has been terminated.

The DELETE statement conflicted with the REFERENCE constraint "R_1552". The conflict occurred in database "RATINGS", table "dbo.abw_results_ll_action", column 'll_vehicle_id'.

The statement has been terminated.


However, this is not consistent with all of the listed agency vehicles, some of which can be deleted.


Tim Souther, PE

%IDOT Bridge Ratings Unit

timothy.souther@illinois.gov

======================================================================



FROM: Bin Zhang DATE: 10/25/2011 8:53:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I am able to import the VehStdGageAgcy.xml into the library successfully (Virtis6.3.0). I tried to delete, create, save the vehicles with and without the axle information. No problems have been detected so far. Further investigation on the SQL database is necessary to figure out the reasons.




FROM: Bin Zhang DATE: 10/26/2011 3:28:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time

After we save the live load actions into the database, we also saved the information of the loading vehicle into the database. That's the reason why we could not delete that vehicle any more in the library.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 1/12/2012 2:42:02 PM Eastern Standard Time

I am finding similar problems. I tried modifying some of our vehicles by clicking the LRFR check box. I could not save and got the error described above. Before 6.3 I deleted a bunch of vehicles without incident if that helps.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 1/12/2012 2:50:08 PM Eastern Standard Time

OK, I shut down Virtis and Re-opend. I had no problems modifying the vehicles. I assume this is related to Zhang's comments because I had previously ran the vehicles before I tried to modify them.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 4:20:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta TAG May 2012 discussion:

Error message should provide better description of the problem and provide workaround if available.


Incident 11219   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Virtis Output Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jackson, Amanda

Date Submitted 1/23/2012 6:22:28 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Amanda Jackson DATE: 1/23/2012 1:23:17 PM Eastern Standard Time

I would like to see an enhancement to the Virtis rating output that lists the controlling location for all of the spec checks, not just the lowest rating factor. Some ratings calculated by Virtis are conservative (i.e. web stiffness checks in built-up sections – the AASHTO engine ignores the vertical legs of the flange angles). An engineer needs to use judgment in looking at rating results, and is unable to do this without a full output – especially on Girder-Floorbeam-Stringer superstructures, where generating an LFD Analysis Report is not an option.


Also along these lines, it would helpful to have a control option to ignore certain spec check results. These control options would need to be used with caution, but will help in cases such as rating a bridge where the results of a certain spec check are too conservative, and the engineer has verified a higher rating factor by hand. Checking “ignore” would allow the engineer to get the second controlling condition out of the program.


Conservative results are good in design, but they can be a problem in rating, especially if an engineer is trying to determine whether emergency vehicles can safely cross a bridge. Rating engineers need to be able to pick and choose which spec check conditions are allowed to control the entire bridge rating.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/2/2012 3:19:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Please see whether the New Detailed LFR Report in the Virtis 6.4 release satisfies your needs.


Incident 11220   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Built-up Section Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jackson, Amanda

Date Submitted 1/23/2012 6:23:22 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Amanda Jackson DATE: 1/23/2012 1:24:09 PM Eastern Standard Time

Requesting an enhancement to the AASHTO engine to include the vertical legs of flange angles in built-up sections when determining section properties and girder capacity.


Because built-up sections are defined in Virtis as having angles for the top and bottom flanges, it shouldn’t be too difficult to correctly calculate the web depth and other properties used in the spec checker. For example, AASHTO defines D as the “clear unsupported distance between flange components” for most of the articles in chapter 10 of the 17th edition (2002). This should be calculated as the distance between the ends of the vertical legs of the flange angles. Using the distance from inside of flange to inside of flange is too conservative in many cases. Calculating the flange properties correctly will also make it possible to correctly calculate the web properties, and remove the issue of assuming the web is continuous to the top of the flange plates. The input information is already available in Virtis. The only thing that needs to be changed is the way the AASHTO engine calculates these values.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/27/2014 7:32:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Same request in BRDRSUP-303 ("D" dimension for Rivet Plate Girders).


Incident 11232   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Reports Enhancement Request

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 2/1/2012 6:51:43 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 2/1/2012 1:53:48 PM Eastern Standard Time

Herman - add this to the reports bucket if you feel it is of value


Comment from a designer:

General comment that could be passed along to the committee – the AASHTO engine seems very good in many ways, but a HUGE mark against it is that there is no “output” file… as in, a single file that echoes back the inputs (members and dead/live loads), shows intermediate computations, and report the analysis and summary of specification checks in a single file (i.e. for quality purposes – links the inputs to the outputs in such a way that the program “guarantees” that the specific inputs resulted in those specific outputs).


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/2/2012 8:00:23 AM Eastern Standard Time

Added to the Report bucket for consideration by the Report TAG.


Incident 11247   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Schedule based entry for steel built-up member.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 2/21/2012 6:12:46 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/21/2012 1:13:33 PM Eastern Standard Time

Submitted on behalf of Tim Armbrecht, IDOT.


Received e-mail:

=========================================================================

Herman, has anyone already suggested schedule – based entry for steel in VI as an enhancement? If not, I’ll propose it.


Timothy A. Armbrecht, P.E., S.E.

Chief, Bridge Ratings & Permits Unit

Illinois Department of Transportation

Bureau of Bridges and Structures


Email: Tim.Armbrecht@illinois.gov

From: Souther, Timothy E

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:02 AM

To: Armbrecht, Tim A

Subject: Virtis Enhancement Proposal - Schedule-based Built-up Girders


The current cross-section based entry of steel built-up plate girders is unduly time-consuming and prone to data-entry error. In addition built-up girders cannot be reviewed utilizing schematic diagrams. I propose that a schedule-based option be developed. The benefit to users would be to increase productivity and confidence in Virtis model development.


Tim Souther, PE

%IDOT Bridge Ratings Unit

timothy.souther@illinois.gov

=========================================================================


Incident 11361   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Transforming girder reinforcement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Price, Adam

Date Submitted 4/18/2012 2:27:02 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Adam Price DATE: 4/18/2012 10:32:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time

It would be helpful if Opis/Virtis had the capability to transform prestressing and mild reinforcement in prestressed girders. How hard would it be to add this feature? Conspan is able to do this, and if I choose to transform in Conspan, then I cannot get a comparable rating with Opis/Virtis.


Incident 11366   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Virtis Enhancement request: Coverplates on Both Surfaces of Flanges

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 4/20/2012 6:35:19 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 4/20/2012 2:36:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Currently Virtis only allows coverplates to be specified on the top of top flanges and the bottom of bottom flanges. Occasionally, steel wide flange beams and welded plate girders have been strengthened by adding coverplates to the “inside” faces of the flanges (bottom of top flanges and top of bottom flanges). Such beams can’t be properly modeled in Virtis.


This proposal is to enhance Virtis so that coverplates may be specified on both top and bottom surfaces of steel beams.


Incident 11367   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject VIRTIS calculation of C for FB with Section Loss

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 4/20/2012 8:50:47 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/20/2012 4:51:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Tim Armbrecht, IDOT.


Received e-mail:

=========================================================================

Herman, please enter this as an incident in VI. It is the same bridge as the one submitted with 11256. It’s possible that the XML for 11256 contains part of the bridge and not the part referenced here. If you believe that is the case, let me know, and I’ll ask M&M to provide a new XML.



Timothy A. Armbrecht, P.E., S.E.

Chief, Bridge Ratings & Permits Unit

Illinois Department of Transportation

Bureau of Bridges and Structures


From: Mertz, Rachel L [mailto:RLMertz@modjeski.com]

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:28 PM

To: Armbrecht, Tim A

Cc: Petermeier, David W; Siow, Yuenn-Shuenn; Schafer, Aaron M.

Subject: FW: VIRTIS calculation of C for FB with Section Loss


Tim,


Per conversations regarding our previous rating work for MLK which originally resulted in low as-inspected floorbeam ratings from Virtis, I am sending you information supporting our opinion that Virtis incorrectly reduces the web buckling coefficient which ultimately produces an overly conservative shear capacity and low as-inspected shear ratings. When the average section loss is applied across a shear plane, Virtis automatically reduces the web buckling coefficient (C), even when the section loss is local and occurs in only a small portion of the shear plane. It is our opinion that in situations with this type of section loss, Virtis should use the full web thickness to calculate C. The rating factor would then be calculated by applying the load over the shear plane , using the reduced web area. Please see Aaron’s email below and his attached documents for more information.


If you need anything else from us as you forward this information to Baker for their investigation, just let me know.


RACHEL L. MERTZ, PE, SE | Project Engineer


Modjeski and Masters, Inc.

4 Sunset Hills Professional Center, Edwardsville, IL 62025


From: Schafer, Aaron M.

Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 3:35 PM

To: Mertz, Rachel L

Subject: VIRTIS calculation of C for FB with Section Loss


Tim,


An error was observed when rating floorbeams with local web section loss. When web section loss was entered in VIRTIS, the web buckling coefficient (C) is automatically reduced and the shear capacity of the web tends to be overly conservative, even if the section loss is local and occurs over a relatively short length (parallel to the length of the floorbeam as illustrated in the attached sketch).


We believe that for as-inspected ratings, with local section loss only covering a short length of the web panel, the full web thickness should be input to determine C. The plastic shear force (Vp) should then be calculated by applying the load over the shear plane, using the reduced web area.


I have attached a sketch of a floorbeam with noted section loss, hand calculations illustrating the capacity increase due to the increase in C and the data printout of how VIRTIS is calculating the shear capacity of the floorbeam with section loss. Could you please forward this issue to Baker for their review?


Thank you,


AARON M. SCHAFER, EIT | Structural Engineer in Training


Modjeski and Masters, Inc.

#4 Sunset Hills Professional Center, Edwardsville, IL 62025

=========================================================================



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/4/2012 1:54:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Reply e-mail:

=========================================================================

Herman, I apologize for the late response. To answer your question, we believe your proposed solution would be an appropriate way to accommodate this type of situation since it will require engineering judgment to determine when to use this option.


Thanks,


Tim


From: Lee, Herman [mailto:HLee@mbakercorp.com]

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 4:18 PM

To: Armbrecht, Tim A

Cc: 'Mertz, Rachel L'

Subject: RE: VIRTIS calculation of C for FB with Section Loss


Tim,


The incident number is 11367.


Is this an enhancement request to implement a control option for “with local section loss only covering a short length of the web panel, the full web thickness should be input to determine C” since engineering judgment is involved in determining whether the loss is local and only cover a short length?


Thanks,

Herman

=========================================================================


Incident 11396   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Bridge Exchange Errors

Status Assigned

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 5/1/2012 8:44:04 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 5/1/2012 4:47:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From my consultant (Shoup). I have attached his Word document with the list of errors. I'm also setting up a separate incident for enhancements.


In reviewing the bridge exchange feature in Virtis I don’t think it will work for us (at least at this time). It is working for simple bridges but has issues with the TFS and GFS systems (see attached error list). This would be the majority of the structures that we would be want to use this feature on.


I would set up an incident with Baker to fix the issues with all of the errors that I am getting. It looks like Virtis is locking out the stringers so that you can’t run them even if you don’t change anything. This appears to continue through to the floorbeams and girder or truss sections.


FROM: Mehrdad Ordoobadi DATE: 5/8/2012 10:24:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time

A Floor System bridge cannot be analyzed when the bridge is not checked out or when it is being exchanged because the process requires stringer dead load reactions to be saved to the bridge description. When the bridge is not checked out, changes cannot be made to stringer dead load reactions.



FROM: Mehrdad Ordoobadi DATE: 5/11/2012 2:06:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time

New stringer alternative or a new floorbeam can be created while the bridge is being exchanged. But when during an analysis the dead load reactions are written to the objects that existed and are not editable.


FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 6/7/2012 12:12:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Will there be reponses to some of the other questions/comments submitted? (Such as making truss alternatives?)


Based on Mehrdad's response these structure are not ratable when they are out for Exchange. If that is the case, then why is the Exchange option offered?


We can understand your response, but if we want to make a new floorbeam alternative with deterioration then we cannot rate it because it will not allow the stringer dead load reactions to be calculated and written. Our consultants could make the modifications but would not be able to know what the actual rating is of the new member. This is unworkable. We feel there should be a way to set up a temporary save of the information so that the members can at least run and attain a rating value (without changing the original dead load reactions from the model). There needs to be a way around this in the Exchange option to make it viable to use. This can and should be a very useful tool as we evolve our practices to including consultant's work in our database.


FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 9/11/2012 5:09:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Has any of these error been resolved in the 6.4 beta? We can't test it with the beta sample database if there were.


FROM: Mehrdad Ordoobadi DATE: 9/12/2012 10:25:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time


----- email sent on 7/10/2012 -------

From: Ordoobadi, Mehrdad

Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:53 AM

To: Duray, Jim; Lee, Herman

Subject: VI 11396


Please review the incident 11396


Tim is asking for a better handling of the situation. That is being able to rate the floor system bridge when the bridge is being exchanged.


These are the solutions that I can think of:

1. Disable the floor system analysis when the bridge is being exchanged (as Tim is suggesting). The user will be able to copy the bridge and then try to do the rating of the copied bridge.

2. Add an option to Virtis/Opis application to “open the bridge for analysis” (or some other terminology). Then the user will be able to perform an analysis and review the results.

a. The domain will be editable but the save will be disabled.

b. The user needs to save and close the bridge that is being exchanged and has modified and then open it for analysis and do the analysis and review the results. The bridge explorer analysis should use this option during the analysis too.


The first option is much cheaper it just requires some documentation and disabling of the analysis when the bridge is not checked out or is being exchanged.

The second option is expensive. I will need to spend some time to see how much effort is involved in implementing this option.


Thanks,

Mehrdad


----- email reply on 7/10/2012 -------

From: Lee, Herman

Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:11 PM

To: Ordoobadi, Mehrdad; Duray, Jim

Subject: RE: VI 11396


Another solution for evaluation:


When the stringer dead load reactions object is not editable, is it feasibility to use a temp object to continue the analysis? If “Automatically save the new computed stringer reactions” is selected in the Preferences, also need to tell the user that the stringer dead load reactions will not be saved.


Herman


Incident 11397   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement - Bridge Exchange

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 5/1/2012 8:47:51 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 5/1/2012 4:50:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From my consultant (Shoup). We would be interested in these enhancements sooner than later. Can I get a ballpark estimate as to the amount of effort it would take?


I would suggest that Virtis sets up an “alternate” for the trusses. Currently if a consultant was going to make changes on the truss section they would have to copy the whole “structure definition” and then change it. It might be easier to have an alternative to the main truss with the changes.


One enhancement that would make this feature better would be to have a “Verification” when bringing it back into the main database. I am thinking of a temporary condition where all of the changes are “highlighted” all the way up the layout tree. Then we could easily open up highlighted items until we get to what has changed and then easily approve it. Once we have been through the structure we could “approve” it and it would go back to the normal Virtis file.


One other issue we may have to look out for is the “Existing” check boxes on the alternatives. Usually we check these off except for the one we want rated. When I copied the alternatives and made the changes I wanted and then brought it back into our system it automatically check this alternative as “existing”.


Incident 11407   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Option for User Defined Cb in AASHTO LFD

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 5/3/2012 5:26:32 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 5/3/2012 1:27:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The current Cb formula (AASHTO Std Section 10.48.4.1) is based on the research for the unbraced segment with linear distributed moment. There is also the value of Cb=1.0 for Cantilever and large moment at the middle section of the segment conditions. The curvature of the segment is decided by the end moments. I think this formula is good enough for most structures with intermediate bracings. However this equation may not work for case for the interior spans of a three or more spans continue structure with no bracing between the bent supports. The alternate formula based on the maximum moment and the moments at quarter, center, and three quarter points may be used. In many cases, the Cb values from Virtis are close to 1.0, but they vary from 1.15 to 2.38 based on different moment distribution from the alternate formula (Kirby and Nethercot, 1979). My suggestion is to have the option for user defined Cb value. BRASS engine used to have that option.


FROM: George Huang DATE: 5/3/2012 1:54:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This is also very important for the stringer analysis in the stringer-floor beam system, as well as in the truss system.


Incident 11422   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Any xml file, Validate window

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kolis, Matt

Date Submitted 5/8/2012 3:00:53 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM: Matt Kolis DATE: 5/8/2012 11:03:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time

When using the "Validate" window on any xml file, the Edit - Find function does not work properly. See attached word document for screenshot. This is the case in VO64 Alpha Build 5 and possibly previous builds.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 5/15/2012 10:26:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time

this would be a Support issue since this window has not changed for version 6.4.


FROM: Joseph Ihnat DATE: 5/31/2012 7:47:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Same behavior in 6.3


Incident 11458   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Truss Builtup Member Revision

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 5/15/2012 9:51:58 AM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/15/2012 5:52:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Tim Armbrecht, IL DOT.


Please see attached PDF file for the e-mail with embedded graphics.

======================================================================

From: Souther, Timothy E

Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:45 PM

To: Armbrecht, Tim A

Subject: Virtis 6.4 Development - Truss Builtup Member Revision


This is a proposed Virtis Truss enhancement to provide for coding of a very common truss member type, which cannot be currently coded in Virtis Truss without using a workaround. It is a 4-angled built-up member without flange plates and with lacing or batten plates instead of a web plate (see diagram). It should be defined as a Builtup Member.



Tim Souther, PE

%IDOT Bridge Ratings Unit

======================================================================


Incident 11544   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Export/Import

Status Suspended

Submitted By Curtis, Beckie

Date Submitted 5/30/2012 3:31:29 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Beckie Curtis DATE: 5/30/2012 11:34:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time

User should have option of importing/exporting analysis events including trucks. If this requires writing over the existing truck library this might still be the preferred option.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 6/6/2012 11:32:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Exporting the trucks with the Analysis Settings template is not included in the scope of this task. The difficulty with doing this that needs to be worked out is the vehicle ids in the database are specific to that database. It is not feasible to "write over the existing truck library" because vehicle ids are used by other items in the database and that reference would be altered by an overwrite.


One approach is to include the vehicles in the export and during the import search the target db for the vehicles in the template (by comparing each vehicle). Assign the proper id if a match is found and import the vehicles if no match is found.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 4:09:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center.


Incident 11551   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Spec Check does not check for Strength II when choosen

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crudele, Brenda

Date Submitted 5/30/2012 5:20:57 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Brenda Crudele DATE: 5/30/2012 1:57:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In NYS we have a Design Permit Vehicle that we run for new designs. For prestressed bridges we are required to check the Strength II and Service III limits states with the design permit vehicle.


If I change the Limit States Checks to include only Strength II and Service III and then run the design permit vehicle as a design vehicle, Strength II is not checked.


If I run the design permit vehicle under a permit load then it will check strength II, but it doesn't seem to check Service III.


Is there a way to check Service III and Strength II for one vehicle with one run?


The program won't run if I put the same vehicle as a design load and permit load.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 6/21/2012 2:03:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Virtis/Opis does not allow you to enter the same vehicle in the design and permit load categories.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 2:48:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center/Opis.

Similar request for AASHTO LRFR Engine in Incident 10121.


Incident 11566   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Enhancement request - Truss Supports Deck

Status Suspended

Submitted By Armbrecht, Tim

Date Submitted 5/30/2012 7:52:40 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Tim Armbrecht DATE: 5/30/2012 3:53:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Provide the capability to indicate that a Deck Truss directly supports the deck in a Truss Floor System model. This is similar to the check-box indicating whether or not a Main Girder supports the deck in a Girder Floor System model.


Such models with deck trusses that directly support the deck may currently be modeled but inconvenient workarounds must be employed. These workarounds can also result in confusion for those who must work with the model in the future.


Incident 11585   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Cross Frames member that made Double Angles

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 5/31/2012 5:05:05 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 5/31/2012 1:10:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time

We have quite a few Xframes that utilizes double angle standard shapes. However, we will not be able create this type of shape, since Double Angel Steel shapes cannot be created.


In order to do the above scenario, Virtis needs to add one of the following option

(1) Option to add multiple shapes to the same member (so we could enter the same angle twice)

(2) Option to add "Double angle" shape


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 6/1/2012 8:26:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time

It appears from the mockups that we did not plan for double angles.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/4/2012 9:24:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I checked the comments we received for the mockups. Supporting double angles was not discussed or requested.

Vinacs, do you want to change this incident to an enhancement request?



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/7/2012 12:58:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time

E-mail from Vinacs Vinayagamoorthy:


=====================================================================

Herman


I reviewed some of the older plans to see whether they had been using double angles in the cross frames. The steel bridges built prior to 1958 has the double angles. It is being used on for all members (top, bottom and diagonal). So, I would place it as an enhancement.


I also notices that they replaced the double angle to Structural Tee after 1958.


I beleve we could trick the double angle and find and an equivalent Structural Tee, if necessary.



Vinacs M Vinayagamoorthy

Senior Bridge Engineer

=====================================================================



Incident 11586   

Folder /Support Center

Subject XFrames within Diaphragm Wizard

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 5/31/2012 5:10:14 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 5/31/2012 1:16:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time

It would be very useful, if the Default Xframes identified within the wizard so that it will populate the diaphragms automatically in all bays.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 2:44:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center.


Incident 11618   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Steel bars along the length of culvert

Status Suspended

Submitted By Waheed, Amjad

Date Submitted 6/5/2012 1:37:20 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Amjad Waheed DATE: 6/5/2012 9:40:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Longitudinal steel bars are not shown on any of the screens of Culvert module. How can we input and store steel bars along the length of the culvert?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/6/2012 7:08:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I checked the comments we received for the mockups. Description of longitudinal steel bars in the culvert model was not discussed or requested.


I changed the Category to Enhancement for further discussion.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 2:36:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center.


Incident 11682   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Capacity should be limited to Moment at first yield for girders with Fy <30 ksi

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 7/2/2012 6:23:31 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 7/2/2012 2:31:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Moment capacity for girders with Fy <30 ksi should be limited to moment at first yield within LFD.

So, whether the user chose the option of ALLOW Plastic Analsysis is ON, software should limit the capacity to moment at first yield.


The AASHTO Engine seems to use the plastic moment capacity for girder with Fy=26ksi, when ALLOW PLASTIV ANALYSIS option turned on.


Please use Span 2 MDL 1 of 1, Girder 2 to test. While First Alternative has the control option Allow Plastic Capacity is OFF, the second Alternative has the option ON.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/2/2012 4:30:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Wayne, is this a relesae bug or beta bug?



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/3/2012 7:39:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Wayne confirmed this is a release bug. Changed Folder to /Support Center/Virtis.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/3/2012 9:44:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Krisha's comment:


============================================================

This came up in beta testing when we added LFD to the AASHTO engine.


Neither the Std nor LRFD spec give a hard restriction on the Fy that can achieve Mp.


The Std spec says the following and I don’t see the LRFD spec saying anything similar:


10.48.1.2 Article 10.48.1 is applicable to steels with a demonstrated ability to reach Mp. Steels such as AASHTO M 270 Grades 36, 50 and 50W (ASTM A 709 Grades 36, 50 and 50W), and AASHTO M 270 Grade HPS70W (ASTM A 709 Grade HPS70W) meet these requirements. The limitations set forth in Article 10.48.1 are given in Table 10.48.1.2A.


We addressed this in the Method of Solution manual flowcharts by saying the preceding article is controlled by the ‘allow plastic analysis’ switch.


This is an enhancement subject to TAG agreement and TF direction.

============================================================


Changed Category to Enhancement.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/3/2012 1:33:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time

E-mail from Vinacs:


============================================================

I noticed that Baker considered this VI as enhancement.


This issue came up in the past and BRASS software is modified to limit the capacity to moment at first yield for Fy <30 ksi.


Here is the copy of the MBE Article that lead to limit the capacity to My.

This MBE requirement is adapted in 1994.


(Embedded image moved to file: pic09518.jpg)


We have a lot bridges that are modeled in our system, where the flag (limit it to yield) is not turned on. These bridges, if rated using AASHTO will yield higher.


I am OK with this as is, however, it needs to be incorporated into the engine.


Vinacs M Vinayagamoorthy

Senior Bridge Engineer

============================================================


Incident 11685   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject using the interaction equations for tension and compression members in the Guide Specs for Truss (Section 1.8) with eccentricity

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 7/3/2012 1:14:17 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Bin Zhang DATE: 7/3/2012 9:14:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Enhancement request (could be a control option) for using the interaction equations for tension and compression members in the Guide Specs for Truss (Section 1.8) when eccentricity is entered for the member. The Guide Specs for Truss provided by George was attached in the document.


Incident 11706   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Culvert Design Tool - Various Issues

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 7/12/2012 2:53:56 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 7/12/2012 10:58:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I had our culvert expert take a look at the design tool and we came up with the following issues that need serious consideration. The review was not extensive so some of these may not be entirely accurate. Note that we do not license Opis here at MoDOT and I don't know if that will change anytime soon. Thus, additional feedback from Opis users would be helpful.


1. Design tool only has one cover other than bottom slab cover. Typically culverts can have up to four different covers: Top of Top Slab, Outside Exterior Wall, Bottom of Bottom Slab & Inside Cell Cover. This pretty much follows AASHTO.


2. Surcharge height should be calculated by the program. Appears that currently the user would have to calculate this value. An override by the user would make sense, too.


3. Design of culverts should include with and without water checks. It appears that the design tool will use whatever water level is entered as a static condition. Exterior walls designed with water can give significantly smaller thickness than designed without.


4. There needs to be Help for the design tool. For instance, the fill depth for the design tool is different than the value entered for an analysis. One is measured from bottom of slab and the other from top of slab.


5. Not sure that the reinforcing scheme is being populated correctly. I am attaching an image of the reinforcing sheme created by the design tool. The top and bottom slab reinforcement appears to be flipped. I would expect the top bottom slab reinforcement to extend the full length to resist mid cell moments. Also, bottom reinforcement for the top slab was created and centered over the walls. This would be compression reinforcement and does not seem logical.


6. It would be nice if the user could choose to use the General Procedure for shear analysis. This is required by AASHTO for slabs 16" and greater. It might be better to have this option for analysis as it may be difficult to use for a design tool.


7. The program must be able to perform a design review.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/12/2012 1:09:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time

1-3, 6 and 7 are enhancement requests for the AASHTO Culvert Engine. 4 and 5 need to be investigated. 5 might be duplicate of Incident 11654.



FROM: Xinmei Li DATE: 7/12/2012 1:14:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time

4, The fill depth for the design tool is the same as the value entered for an analysis. Both are measured from the top of the slab. See attached bmp file, it's comparison of that in design tool window and RC box culvert loads window.

5, duplicate of Incident 11654, it's resolved when next beta version is available.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/13/2012 9:07:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

May, please hook up the Help button in the Design Tool.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 7/13/2012 9:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time

While I consider 1-3 & 7 near neccessities for any culvert design program, I am not sure how 3 can be considered an enhancement considering that a design review cannot be performed. Every culvert must be designed with and without water (or high and low water levels for a more exact analysis). With the current set-up, the user would have to run the design tool twice and use the combination of the two which they would not be able to check with a design review.


As for the fill depth, I attached a summary report which shows the Depth of Fill = 3.5', the slab thickness = 12.5" and the Depth of Backfill for EV Loads = 2.458'. This leads me to believe that the design tool is measuring the fill depth to the bottom of the slab. This would actually make sense for a design tool since this input would not change as the slab depth changes.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/13/2012 2:02:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Aaron, I should be more clear when I said 1-3, 6 and 7 are enhancement requests for the AASHTO Culvert Engine. In the context of the 6.4 work plan, 1-3, 6 and 7 are considered as enhancement requests.


We will investigate the fill depth issue you identified.



FROM: Xinmei Li DATE: 7/23/2012 2:51:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Help is hooked up.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/30/2012 9:40:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Implemented culvert design review in Beta 4.

In the context of the 6.4 work plan, 1-3 and 6 are considered as enhancement requests.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 2:56:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center/Opis.


Incident 11713   

Folder /Support Center

Subject PS Deck Beam Distribution Factor Control

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 7/13/2012 3:37:43 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 7/13/2012 11:51:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Incident 10279 was addressed, but P/S Deck Beams are very similar. For adjacent construction w/o a composite deck where the beams are not sufficiently connected to act as a unit, the distribution factor equations are different. Appears that Virtis always assumes a sufficient connection between beams.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 7/13/2012 12:33:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time

What type of beam shape are you referring to? Adjacent box beams?


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 7/13/2012 1:24:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Adjacent Box Beams. Type G cross-section in AASHTO.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 7/13/2012 3:08:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Enhancement request to provide ability for user to specify if adjacent boxes should be considered type f or type g by using the sufficiently connected checkboxx.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 2:40:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center.


Incident 11719   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Culvert - Bi-axial flexure

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 7/16/2012 5:42:38 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 7/16/2012 1:44:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time

During design, we normally ignore designing/checking bi-axial flexure since it is "more conservative" to do so.


Is there a way to turn off the bi-axial flexure, like in the Control Options?


Including it for load rating is probably fine all the time, but might be nice to have a control option for LF also.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 7/17/2012 10:58:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I'm investigating this now. Hopefully you recall that culvert (for the most part) is the WisDOT culvert program so I don't know why biaxial was used. The WisDOT program uses the AASHTO spec-check module. So it is using a WisDOT modified version of the Opis biaxial column routine. There is no uniaxial routine.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 7/19/2012 8:54:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I coded a uniaxial routine based on the biaxial routine that does not iterate to find the angle of the neutral axis (since we know it's orientation because there is moment about only one axis). It is producing the same results but is slightly faster since it doesn't have to iterate to find the angle of the NA.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 7/19/2012 3:10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I guess what I should have said - can we do the walls and other members as only bending/shear and ignore any axial effects?


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 7/23/2012 10:28:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time

That would be an enhancement.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 3/21/2013 8:18:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Please revise the status so it reflects an Enhancement to make the enhancement list.

Thanks,

Todd


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/25/2013 8:47:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Category to Enhancement.


Incident 11720   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Add 2 parameters into the GUI for the calculation of the transverse load patterns

Status Suspended

Submitted By Zhang, Bin

Date Submitted 7/16/2012 8:50:10 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Bin Zhang DATE: 7/16/2012 4:50:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time

When calculating the transverse load patterns, Virtis uses the parameters listed below.

1. Lane increment = 4.0000 ft

2. Vehicle increment within a lane = 2.0000 ft

The 2 parameters are currently hard coding, and the user is not able to modify them from the GUI. Adding these 2 parameters into the GUI will make Virtis more flexible for the users who are willing to trade somewhat calculation time for the higher accuracy.


Incident 11770   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Enhancement of Truss Member and Cross Section Inputs

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 7/30/2012 1:59:42 AM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 7/29/2012 10:06:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The current commands for inputting truss member properties may not be sufficient for the analysis purpose, especially for members with eccentric connections. Here are some suggestions:

1)The cross section input need to able to rotate the section, or to switch x and y axes direction. It is very important for members with eccentric connections, since the eccentricity e can be only defined along the vertical direction. Or the direction of eccentricity, e, needs to be defined specifically.

2)The effective member length factors Kx and Ky need to be defined separately, since the lateral effective length are not always the same for the in-plan and out of plan buckling. For example, if batten plates are used, the lateral effective length has to be modified based on MCEB. Also the lateral bracing may not be located at all truss joints.

3)For the eccentric distance, e, input, both positive and negative signs may be necessary, to order to define the locations are above, or below the CG line.

4)If the signs of e are used, then the section modulus S (distances from extreme fibers to CG) for both top and bottom need to be defined.

5) The eccentricities at both direction can be specified at the same times. This condition is usefull if the member has some lateral deformatin, or some section loss.


Incident 11775   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Would like ability to run a spec check from a previous 3D bridge analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crudele, Brenda

Date Submitted 8/1/2012 12:50:10 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Brenda Crudele DATE: 8/1/2012 8:57:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time

This is an enhancement request for 3D analysis. Currently if you run a 3D analysis on one member alternate the program analyzes the whole bridge and then you get spec check results for that one girder. If now you want to do a spec check on another girder you have to completely rerun the whole analysis again. This can take a long time if you have a large bridge. It can also take a long time to completely run the whole bridge.


Request would be to add the ablility to reuse a previous 3D analysis and run a spec check for another girder based on a previous analysis.


Incident 11815   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Detailed Rating Report using BWS Report writer

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 8/9/2012 7:16:38 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 8/9/2012 3:44:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I have analyzed a bridge using LRFR, where AC overlay exists.


This report does combine the dead loads belongs to DC and DW load cases and report the unfactored dead load. Unfortunately, since contribution of DC and DW is not known, I find it difficult to check the rating factor using the information provided in the report. It would have been better to report DC and DW separately.


I am not sure whether separating the dead load was discussed in the original development and/or for somehow it was slipped through our mind. If this is a new request, I would like to add this as future enhancement request.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 2:45:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center/Virtis.


Incident 11831   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Drilled Shaft Issues

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 8/10/2012 5:39:32 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 8/10/2012 1:55:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I had someone take a quick look at the drilled shaft module and he reported the following issues. I am attaching an xml file. He thinks that some of the issues may be user error.


Chris:

I was unable to get the drilled shaft module to run in OPIS. I kept getting an error that the finite element model could not be created. I was also unable to save the file after copying and pasting a foundation definition. The program crashes after closing the 3D schematic of the substructure which only shows the schematic for the last column.


Some things that are missing from the program (Chris's opinion):


No input for rock (weak or strong) soil-type for p-y curves.

No input for web wall or collision wall plate elements.

No input for tie beams.


Aaron:

Would it make sense to set up soil user definitions in the library since there are no default rock definitions for the p-y curves?


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 8/10/2012 2:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Drilled shaft is not included in the 6.4 release (actually only the UI is included). The analysis is (or should be) disabled. I see that the disabling of the analysis didn't make into the Beta 3 build. The next build will display the following message:


"Analysis of piers with a drilled shaft foundation is not currently supported by the software.

Analysis will be supported beginning with version 6.4.1.


Analysis failed!"




FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 8/14/2012 10:49:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The items above that are "missing" are enhancements.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 4:17:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center/Opis Sub.


Incident 11837   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Add default values of k and E50 to help file

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ruby, Jeff

Date Submitted 8/13/2012 6:11:41 PM

Estimated Cost mini

Description FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 8/13/2012 2:14:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time

It would be helpful to at least have some ball park number to enter for soil layers.


The following is taken from the COM624P dos program's help file:




p-y Curve Criteria

Soil Modulus Parameter k

Soil Strain Parameter E50



p-y Curve Criteria


These criteria are used by LPILE1 to calculate p-y curves internally


Option 1 - Soft Clay (Matlock, 1970)

Option 2 - Stiff Clay Below the Watertable (Reese et al., 1975)

Option 3 - Stiff Clay Above the Watertable (Reese & Welch, 1975)

Option 4 - Sand (Reese et al., 1974)



Soil Modulus Parameter k for Clays


Average Undrained Shear Strength Static Cyclic


Soft Clay, c = 1.74 to 3.47 psi 30 pci -

250 to 500 psf

12 to 24 KPa 8,140 KPa/m -


Medium Clay, c = 3.47 to 6.94 psi 100 pci -

500 to 1000 psf

24 to 48 KPa 27,150 KPa/m -


Stiff Clay, c = 6.94 to 13.9 psi 500 pci 200 pci

1000 to 2000 psf

48 to 96 KPa 136,000 KPa/m 54,300 KPa/m


Very Stiff Clay, c = 13.9 to 27.8 psi 1000 pci 400 pci

2000 to 4000 psf

96 to 192 KPa 271,000 KPa/m 108,500 KPa/m


Hard Clay, c = 27.8 to 55.6 psi 2000 pci 800 pci

4000 to 8000 psf

192 to 383 KPa 543,000 KPa/m 217,000 KPa/m



Soil Modulus Parameter k for Sands


Relative Density Loose Medium Dense


Submerged Sand 20 lb/in3 60 lb/in3 125 lb/in3

" " 5,430 KPa/m 16,300 KPa/m 33,900 KPa/m


Sand Above WT 25 lb/in3 90 lb/in3 225 lb/i3

" " " 6,790 KPa/m 24,430 KPa/m 61,000 KPa/m



Soil Strain Parameter E50


Soft Clay, c = 1.74 to 3.47 psi E50 = 0.02

250 to 500 psf

12 to 24 KPa


Medium Clay, c = 3.47 to 6.94 psi E50 = 0.01

500 to 1000 psf

24 to 48 KPa


Stiff Clay, c = 6.94 to 13.9 psi E50 = 0.007

1000 to 2000 psf

48 to 96 KPa


Very Stiff Clay, c = 13.9 to 27.8 psi E50 = 0.005

2000 to 4000 psf

96 to 192 KPa


Hard Clay, c = 27.8 to 55.6 psi E50 = 0.004

4000 to 8000 psf

192 to 383 KPa


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 4:19:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center/Opis Sub.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/12/2013 3:36:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Need to check whether above p-y Curve Criteria is copyrighted.


Incident 11838   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Units for soil parameters in Drilled Shaft

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ruby, Jeff

Date Submitted 8/13/2012 6:17:34 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 8/13/2012 2:35:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time

When you hover the cursor is in a box, there are no units as a tool tip. When working with these (not used to) units, it would be nice to see a confirmation that 2755222.044 kg/m3 is about 27000 KPa/m or that 172 kcf is about 100 pci.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 8/14/2012 10:17:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The hover works on my PC.


FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 8/14/2012 4:31:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Step 1) click soil tab on Foundation Type Drilled Shaft.

Step 2) in the soil profile window, click on a layer or add one if it doesn't exist.

Setp 3) hover over the box for k or c or Saturated Density. If you acidently click on something, click somewhere else so you can hover.


Report what units show up in the hover. I get nothing.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 8/23/2012 7:52:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time

So are you seeing an empty hover tooltip or is there no response to hovering?

I don't think any of the grids provide hover capability. I checked several others under member alt and none of them provide hover capability. I'm changing this to an enhancement request.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/9/2012 4:17:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed Folder from Beta Testing to Support Center.


FROM: Jeff Ruby DATE: 5/9/2013 11:06:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time

See VI 12501

As discussed at the Beta Tag meeting, incorporate additional hover capability for "data grids".


Incident 11863   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Built-Up I Beam Member: No Provision For a Horizontal Back To back Dimension

Status Suspended

Submitted By Campisi, Paul

Date Submitted 8/16/2012 6:55:02 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Paul Campisi DATE: 8/16/2012 3:12:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time

For the Built-Up Member named "MyBuiltup2" on page 31 of the Truss Command Language Manual, there is no provision to space the vertical legs of the angles. Iyy is calculated as if the vertical angle legs are in contact (Back to Back Horizontal = 0). The web lacing is usually installed between the vertical angle legs, which increases Iyy. There should be a horizontal back To back command to space the angles. Or maybe a default value of 0.75 inches, which is two 0.375 inch lacing bars.


Additonally, there is an incorrect command line in the example. The word "Horizontal" is on its own line as shown below.



Builtup = MyBuiltup2

TopFlangePlate

18.0 1.125 A440-2

BottomFlangePlate

18.0 1.125 A440-2

TopAngles "L 5x3.5x0.75" Horizontal

BottomAngles "L 5x3.5x0.75"

Horizontal <===================?

BackToBack 20.0

Connection Riveted 10.3125

Lacing Web


FROM: Xinmei Li DATE: 8/20/2012 9:34:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

This example was in 6.3 version. Changed to support.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/10/2012 9:43:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The BackToBack command was added for implementing BackBackAngles in 6.1. It will be an enhancement request to support the BackToBack command for the other built-up sections. Enhancing the Lacing command to include thickness is another option for consideration.


May, please fix the incorrect command in the example indicated by Paul.



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/10/2013 7:45:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The example in the Truss Command Language Manual will be corrected for the 6.5 release.

I'm changing this incident to an enhancemnet request.


FROM: Bin Zhang DATE: 4/12/2013 4:55:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The example in the Truss Command Language Manual has been fixed for the 6.5 release.


Incident 11958   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Rate for both positve and negative LL demand regarless of the sign of factored TOTAL demand

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 10/5/2012 7:19:23 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/5/2012 3:19:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Split out from Incident 11307.


==================================================================================

FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 9/14/2012 10:41:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time


(2) When we have negative moment due to live load, the rating factor should be based on “negative moment capacity” not based on positive moment demand.

I checked the Flexural Rating Spec output at Span1-96.46ft location. The software is using the Phi-Mn of 13382 kip-ft when establishing the rating factor using negative moment demand. Phi-Mn of 13382 is positive moment capacity and therefore It is incorrect. It should be using the negative moment capacity. Furthermore, for some reason reported the RF as NA.


The negative moment capacity at this point is -2763.26 (Phi=0.9, Mn=3070.29). When I evaluated the rating factor for negative moment for P13 truck (#10), it came about as 2.24, which is much lower than what is established (7.67) by the software

RF = [-2763.26 – 1.3(1946-97.53)]/(1.3x1774) = 2.24


See attached word document "Negative Moment Capacity for PS-I girder"

In other words, the rating results based on negative demand is NOT properly evaluated and as a result, I resubmit this issue.




FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 10/3/2012 4:55:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This fix does not take care of the problem reported at 96.46ft location. RF is NOT established using negative moment. The RF at this point for P13 permit truck is given as 7.67. If we did the calculation, the RF based on negative moment 2.34.


The software is checkin whether factored TOTAL demand is positive or negative to decided whether to rate using positive, negative moment, or both. This logic needs to be modified and it should rate for both positve and negative LL demand regarless of the sign of factored TOTAL demand.

==================================================================================



FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/12/2013 3:40:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time

May 2013 Beta TAG discussion:

Vinacs indicated that this enhancement is for all girder types.


Incident 11975   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Request for Splice Analysis Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crudele, Brenda

Date Submitted 10/16/2012 2:34:28 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Brenda Crudele DATE: 10/16/2012 10:37:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time

NYSDOT would like to request a LRFD splice analysis to be added to the program as an enhancement. We would be willing to use service units. Full description of request in attached as a word file.


Features of the enhancement would include the following:

- Hybrid girder splice capability

- Curved girder splice capability

- Follows AASHTO LRFD Section 6.13.6 including the commentary of Section C6.13.6.1.4c

- LRFR capability

- Has a simple input with a viewer that shows the input.


In addition to the LRFD ability we would like to have it priced out as to how much it would cost for LFD analysis and load rating. This would include a normal splice and a continuous for live load splice at a pier.


Incident 11995   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Culvert Reports - Member Moments, Shears and Axial Forces

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 10/29/2012 1:30:59 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 10/29/2012 9:34:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I would like to make sure we have this in the enhancement hopper and under consideration for the Reports TAG.

We need to be able to summarize in a report -

Various culvert members (each top slab, bottom slab, exterior wall, interior walls) and their respective Moments, Shears and Axial loads -


Ideally also being able to get graphs for each member.


While this data is somewhat available in the detailed output - in takes considerable effort and diligence to dig and find. And then one can create their own Excel spreadsheets and then graphs - it sure would be much nicer if the application would pull that data and put it into tables and graphs for the user.


Incident 11998   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject LRD Culvert Live Loading

Status Suspended

Submitted By Litchfield, Phil

Date Submitted 10/30/2012 2:48:31 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 10/30/2012 10:51:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From consultant (Souther):


We are getting differing results when using an in-house program to check against Virtis culvert ratings at certain fill depths. We believe that it has to do with the spacing of the wheel loads. If the culvert has multiple lanes on it two wheel loads can be 4’ apart. This is taken into consideration in the in-house program, but we believe it is not in the Virtis culvert module. Attached is a copy of the IDOT policy for reference.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 10/30/2012 10:53:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time

AASHTO Culvert Engine does not take multiple lanes into consideration for live load distribution. Please refer to page 31 in the Culvert Method Of Solution Manual for the LFD live load distribution flowchart.


FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 11/5/2012 11:57:17 AM Eastern Standard Time

Herman,

We would prefer to have the option to consider multiple lane loading. Since in some case this will result in a lower rating. Can you please figure an estimate to make this change?


Incident 12073   

Folder /Support Center

Subject In 5.8.3.4.2 Epsilon is not allowed to be less than zero

Status Suspended

Submitted By Mlynarski, Mark

Date Submitted 11/28/2012 6:45:17 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Mark Mlynarski DATE: 11/28/2012 1:45:53 PM Eastern Standard Time

The following was logged by a user and will be addressed as Maintenance.


We currently set Epsilon to zero as the user mentions, which follows the specification, but there is an ‘or’ option when Epsilon is less than zero that is not currently implemented.


From: Reneson, Jacob [mailto:Jacob.Reneson@jacobs.com]

Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:48 AM

To: Bridgeware,

Cc: Peterson, Bruce

Subject: negative epsilon conservatively taken as 0 in Virtis for general procedure shear design


Greetings,


I am wondering if there is a way to have Virtis take epsilon (net longitudinal tensile steel strain) as negative when computing shear resistance of prestressed sections using the General Procedure of AASHTO 5.8.3.4.2. It appears that Virtis is taking epsilon conservatively as zero when negative as allowed per 5.8.3.4.2. However, the beams were not designed this way and hence do not work when run in Virtis.


I know I could manually input all the tenth points with user defined betas and thetas under points of interest but I am trying to save this work since there is about 4 spans and 15 beams per span.



Thanks




Jacob Reneson, P.E./ S.E.

Structural Engineer


One Corporate Center

7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 400

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 U.S.A.

Direct 1.952.345.4124

Fax 1.952.835.7376

jacob.reneson@jacobs.com



Incident 12091   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject STR-I limit state removed from box culvert analysis when permit vehicles only are specified

Status Suspended

Submitted By Wagner, Brad

Date Submitted 12/6/2012 5:08:53 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Wayne Skow DATE: 12/6/2012 12:10:19 PM Eastern Standard Time

I'm submitting this on behalf of Brad Wagner. Brad raised a question in issue 12085 resulting in this enhancement request.


When only permit trucks are specified in box culvert, the analysis includes STR-I, STR-II and SER-I limit states. and STR-I results will be reported in the LRFD spec check article reports. The LRFR code, however, only requires STR-II and SER-I limit states for permit vehicles.


The final rating results as displayed by the Analysis Report dialog filters out the STR-I results. So those results do not affect the final rating. However, the presence of STR-I limit states can be confusing and misleading. For example, article 5.8.3.3 can show up as “failed” in the spec check results because the STR-I case failed within an article even though all STR-II cases passed.


Please enhance the box culvert analysis so that only the appropriate limit states are displayed.


See the attached pdf file for additional information.


Incident 12135   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Bridge Alternative Wizard - Culvert

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 1/14/2013 4:47:20 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 1/14/2013 11:48:44 AM Eastern Standard Time

Should we have created a Bridge Alternative Wizard for culverts like we did for superstructures?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 1/14/2013 12:17:31 PM Eastern Standard Time

Yes.


FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 1/14/2013 12:31:10 PM Eastern Standard Time

Can we add this to the Maintenance List?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 1/20/2013 11:50:27 AM Eastern Standard Time

Changed Category to Maintenance.


Incident 12168   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Traffic load placement for the narrow way bridges

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 2/1/2013 7:03:26 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Bin Zhang DATE: 2/1/2013 2:03:53 PM Eastern Standard Time

I submitted this enhancement request on behalf of George Huang from CalTran.The communication email was listed below:


************************************************************************************************************

Ben,


Maybe I should say ".. I think it should may be revised"


In the floor beam analysis, the 4 feet wheel spacing between two trucks will produce lower moment than 3 feet wheel spacing. Actually I don't have too much concern, since it's unlikely to having 3 feet spacing in real live for heavy trucks with normal speed. The wheel load could also be place on, or beyond the edge of road way with current method in Virtis. This will create more shear on the floor beam, and more live load on truss, which need to be avoided for bridges with low ratings.


Thanks,


George Huang

Senior Bridge Engineer

Bridge Rating and Analysis Branch

Division of Structures Maintenance

MS 9 - 1/9I

Office: (916) 227-8769

Cell: (916) 802-0949

Fax: (916) 227-8357

----- Forwarded by George Huang/HQ/Caltrans/CAGov on 02/01/2013 07:41 AM -----

George Huang/HQ/Caltrans/CAGov

02/01/2013 07:36 AM

To

"Zhang, Bin"



cc

"Lee, Herman"



Subject

RE: Some Questions for Narrow Bridge and Virtis 3D Analysis






Ben,


It seems to me the method Virtis using for narrow bridge is very questionable. I think it should be revised.


Thanks,


George Huang

Senior Bridge Engineer

Bridge Rating and Analysis Branch

Division of Structures Maintenance

MS 9 - 1/9I

Office: (916) 227-8769

Cell: (916) 802-0949

Fax: (916) 227-8357

"Zhang, Bin"


"Zhang, Bin"

02/01/2013 06:18 AM

To

George Huang



cc

"Lee, Herman"



Subject

RE: Some Questions for Narrow Bridge and Virtis 3D Analysis






George,


This situation is kind of tricky.


For example, when the user defined road way is 9 feet wide, Virtis will set the road way to be 12 feet to produce the maximum stress in the member under consideration. In other words, Virtis consider the situation when some of the truck wheels are beyond/off the 9 feet road way.


Please feel free to let me know if you still have questions about this. This is really a very good question.


Thanks!

Ben


From: George Huang [mailto:george.huang@dot.ca.gov]

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:39 PM

To: Zhang, Bin

Cc: Lee, Herman

Subject: RE: Some Questions for Narrow Bridge and Virtis 3D Analysis


Ben,


Here is my respond to your comments of Question 1:

In fact, if the user defined road way is between 9 and 10 feet or 18 and 20, Virtis will still place the traffic loads in a 12 feet wide traffic lanes, wheel spacing is 6 feet, the edge distance is 2 feet, and the wheel spacing between adjacent trucks is 4 feet.

In my opinion, this rule is kind of conservative for the narrow road way bridge. Please read article 3.6 traffic lanes in “AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, 2002” for details.

Above live load dimensions won't work for narrow bridge:

one live load lane: 2 feet (edge) + 6 feet (vehicle)+ 2 feet (edge) = 10 feet > 9 feet.

two live load lanes: 2 feet +6 feet + 4 feet( spacing between truck)+ 6 feet (vehicle) + 2 feet = 20 > 18 feet.


Thanks,


George Huang

Senior Bridge Engineer

Bridge Rating and Analysis Branch

Division of Structures Maintenance

MS 9 - 1/9I

Office: (916) 227-8769

Cell: (916) 802-0949

Fax: (916) 227-8357

************************************************************************************************************


Q : Missing description of live load placement for road way between 9 and 10 feet, or 18 to 20 feet when AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges Article 6.7.2.2 is used.


A : When using AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Article 3.6.3:

Roadway widths from 20 to 24 feet have two design lanes, each equal to one half the roadway width.


When using AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, Article 6.7.2.2

Roadway widths from 18 to 24 feet have two design lanes, each equal to one half the roadway width.


The statement above showed the only difference between 3.6.3 and 6.7.2.2.


For both 3.6.3 and 6.7.2.2, the design lane number is 1 for road way between 9 and 10 feet.

For 3.6.3, the design lane number is 1 for road way between 18 and 20 feet.

For 6.7.2.2, the design lane number is 2 for road way between 18 and 20 feet.


I created the incident #12150 on your behalf, the fix will be available for version 6.5.


Q : I add following comments to VI#12150:

The one important issue for narrow road way is the width of live load and the edge distance. I’m assuming 9 feet wide live lane load will be used for road way between 9 and 10, and 18 and 20. For the truck wheel line, wheel spacing is still 6 feet, the edge distance will be 1.5 feet (instead of 2 feet), and the wheel spacing between adjacent trucks will be 3 feet (instead of 4 feet).


A : In fact, if the user defined road way is between 9 and 10 feet or 18 and 20, Virtis will still place the traffic loads in a 12 feet wide traffic lanes, wheel spacing is 6 feet, the edge distance is 2 feet, and the wheel spacing between adjacent trucks is 4 feet.

In my opinion, this rule is kind of conservative for the narrow road way bridge. Please read article 3.6 traffic lanes in “AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, 2002” for details.

************************************************************************************************************


Incident 12172   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Culvert - Bent bar with hook

Status Suspended

Submitted By Litchfield, Phil

Date Submitted 2/1/2013 8:18:36 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 2/1/2013 3:27:38 PM Eastern Standard Time

From Beisner:


There is no option to put a hook at the end of a bent bar in a culvert. But you do have the option in a slab. Can this be added to the bar definitions for culverts? Also, can a field be added to the bent bar definition to allow for multiple series of bends? Attached is the bar detail we were trying to model in a culvert.


Incident 12181   

Folder /Support Center

Subject General Procedure Method for Shear Computation - Culvert

Status Suspended

Submitted By Litchfield, Phil

Date Submitted 2/8/2013 9:54:21 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 2/8/2013 4:55:39 PM Eastern Standard Time

There currently is only options to compute shear for culverts using the simplified method or ignore. Can the general procedure for shear computation be added?


Incident 12200   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Support varying LRFD LL DF within a range

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 2/20/2013 1:20:48 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/20/2013 8:21:12 AM Eastern Standard Time

Submitted on behalf of Vinacs Vinayagamoorthy, Caltrans.


Please see the request email attached in this incident.


Incident 12202   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Bottom Slabs of Box Culverts

Status Suspended

Submitted By Wagner, Brad

Date Submitted 2/20/2013 8:33:38 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Brad Wagner DATE: 2/20/2013 3:41:52 PM Eastern Standard Time

AASHTO LFD Section 16.7.4.3 includes provisions for a wider distribution of live loads for analysis of the bottom slab of a cast in place culvert as a function of the culvert height. It appears that Virtis is applying this provision for fill heights greater than 2'. However, it does not include the provision for fill heights less than 2'.


In my opinion, this should be incorporated. On a few cases that I've looked at, including the attached, the live load moment on the bottom slab of the culvert is almost the same as the tob slab, which seems unrealistic.


For a fill height of 1.1' as attached, the strip width for the bottom slab should equal 1.1'+2*10' = 21.1'


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/19/2013 8:18:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time

AASHTO Culvert Engine only considers LFD 16.6.4.3 for fill depth greater than and equal to 2 feet. This is documented in the flowchart in the Method of Solution manual and reviewed by the TAG during Beta testing. We would need TF and TAG agreements to consider LFD 16.6.4.3 for fill depth less than 2 feet. Making this change will see less live load at the bottom slab for fill depth less than 2 feet.


Incident 12213   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Culvert - Exposure Factor enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Litchfield, Phil

Date Submitted 2/27/2013 12:59:24 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/27/2013 8:00:05 AM Eastern Standard Time

Submitted on behalf of Phil Litchfield, Illinois DOT.


Add a user input for the exposure factor for the walls. Also, to allow the slab exposure factor to be applied to culverts with fill.


The original request was entered in Incident 12191.


Incident 12215   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Question on Windows Authentication

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 2/27/2013 7:07:56 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 2/27/2013 2:10:15 PM Eastern Standard Time

(1) Does Virtis Opis support Windows Authentication for logging into the DB

(2) If not, are there any plans to pursue this?


As we migrate from Sybase to SQL Server - our DBA's are very reluctant to take the ancient practice of user id - password like what appears in Virtis Opis and really prefer Windows Authentication. The approach of user id and passwords is extremly rare for our SLQ Server DBA's.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 2/27/2013 2:46:57 PM Eastern Standard Time

Virtis/Opis does not support Windows Authentication for logging into the DB. Currently there is no plan to support Windows Authentication.


Please let us know if you would like to change this incident into an enhancement request. Thanks.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 2/27/2013 3:05:28 PM Eastern Standard Time

Please make this an enhancement.


Incident 12222   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Wearing surface consideration/improvement in virtis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Cavanaugh, Scott

Date Submitted 3/7/2013 7:26:36 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 3/7/2013 2:26:58 PM Eastern Standard Time

Submitted on behalf of Scott Cavanaugh, HNTB.


Received Bridgeware email:

============================================================

Herman / Ben,

Or, maybe a better virtis improvement:


Within each MEMBER ALTERNATIVE / DESCRIPTION tab, improve the capabilities of the ADDITIONAL SELF LOAD input to allow assigning a load case, so that you could add an ADDITIONAL SELF LOAD for each load type, if desired.


Thanks

Scott


From: Scott Cavanaugh

Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 10:45 AM

To: 'Bridgeware,'

Cc: Ekin Senturk

Subject: Wearing surface consideration/improvement in virtis


Herman / Ben,

Many state DOTs and Authorities are currently using Virtis for LRFR. In many of their load rating manuals and policies, they note that any future or additional wearing surface shall not be applied to the As-Built case. This makes sense.


Also, in these models, agencies like to maintain BOTH the As-built model and the As-Inspected model (typically might consider section loss). For section loss, this is typically addressed by adding a separate MEMBER ALTERNATIVE under the same MEMBER, and assigning a name with “As-I” appended. Then, this As-I MEMBER ALTERNATIVE is set to (E)(C) so that virtis sees this member as the EXISTING and CURRENT member. Often times As-B = As-I, but in the event of additional wearing surface, these will not be the same due to increased dead load.


In Virtis, the way the member loads and wearing surface input are treated, there seems to be no good way to consider As-I additional wearing surface in a model. At the SUPERSTRUCTURE level, if the As-I wearing surface thickness is input under WEARING SURFACE, and the SUPERSTRUCTURE LOADS / DL DISTRIBUTION is set to either UNIFORMLY TO ALL GIRDERS or BY TRIBUTARY AREA, Virtis will automatically distribute this wearing surface dead load (DW) to all members within one superstructure. Thus if wearing surface is changed at this location, a separate SUPERSTRUCTURE would need to be created and named with “…As-I”. This could lead to larger than necessary virtis file sizes and seems to be the only way to address As-I wearing surface changes in a model while still maintaining both the As-B and As-I cases.


The option to modify the wearing surface by adding an additional MEMBER LOAD is also not viable since this input would apply to ALL MEMBER ALTERNATIVES within one MEMBER. Again, the only option is to create a second SUPERSTRUCTURE definition as mentioned above.


What would be useful is if Virtis could improve its ability to handle this case, which is not uncommon, by incorporating a wearing surface thickness input at the MEMBER ALTERNATIVE level. Would this be easy to do, and do you think it might be beneficial? Has this issue been raised before?



Thanks

Scott E. Cavanaugh, P.E.

Project Engineer / Team Leader

HNTB Corporation

State Route 3 Eastbound

Turnpike Maintenance Yard

East Rutherford, NJ 07073

============================================================


A couple more ideas:

- Move Member Loads inside the member alternative.

- Allow each member load to specify which member alternative to apply to.


Incident 12339   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Culvert - Rebar Size

Status Suspended

Submitted By Litchfield, Phil

Date Submitted 4/9/2013 7:54:29 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 4/9/2013 4:02:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I recieved the attached error while trying to analysis a culvert. Why does the AASHTO Culvert Engine only support #4 to #10 rebar sizes, yet in the bar mark definitions you can define bars sizes #3 to #18 and 10(SI) to 57(SI).


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/10/2013 7:36:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The WisDOT Box Culvert program that the AASHTO Culvert Engine based on only supports #4 to #10 rebar sizes. The existing culvert design iteration in the WisDOT Box Culvert program needs to be looked at when supporting additional rebar sizes.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 6/20/2013 11:54:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Can't remember what was added to the estimate - but we are including SI size bars?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/24/2013 12:39:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Yes, the estimate includes SI size bars.


Incident 12341   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Madero engine: Locating max and min LL actions

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 4/10/2013 2:40:26 PM

Estimated Cost no est

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/10/2013 10:40:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Alex Pence, WisDOT (Alex.Pence@dot.wi.gov).


Received Bridgeware email:

==============================================

OK, thanks Herman. I have found that the max live load moments don’t match the values in Table C6B-1 of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation. The Madero output is about 2% lower than the actual max LL moment for the bridge I was evaluating. Not a major difference, but it is non-conservative, so finding the actual location and value of maximum moment should perhaps be prioritized in future development of the Madero engine.


Thanks,


Alex


From: Bridgeware, [mailto:Bridgeware@mbakercorp.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:13 AM

To: Pence, Alex W - DOT

Subject: RE: Timber - Points of Interest


Alex,


I looked at the Engine Related Help for Madero. The Madero ASD Engine only supports points of interest at tenth points.


Herman Lee


From: Pence, Alex W - DOT [mailto:Alex.Pence@dot.wi.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 4:24 PM

To: Bridgeware,

Subject: Timber - Points of Interest


I’m using Virtis and trying to look at a point of interest on a timber slab strip (girder line superstructure), other than a tenth point, but I can’t figure out how to analyze it. I went to the member alternative definition, in the Control Options tab, checked the box under Points Of Interest to “Generate at User-Defined Points,” and then created a couple additional Points of Interest. However, the output still only has data for the tenth points. Can you tell me what I’m doing wrong, or is it only possibly to analyze at tenth points?


Thanks


Alex Pence, PE, SE

Structural Development Engineer

WisDOT Bureau of Structures

4802 Sheboygan Ave, Rm 601 | Madison, WI 53707-7916

==============================================


Incident 12352   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Culvert: User-Defined Dead Load

Status Suspended

Submitted By Lee, Herman

Date Submitted 4/15/2013 1:15:14 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/15/2013 9:15:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Submitted on behalf of Murat Hamutcuoglu, HNTB.


Part of the received email on 4/8/2013:

=========================================================

6. User-Defined Dead Load: as given in the interim example, The culvert top slab can be subjected to such dead load from non-structural components. The current Virtis do not provide analyst to assign such user-defined dead load.

=========================================================


Incident 12388   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Fixed Ends on Floorbeams

Status Suspended

Submitted By Litchfield, Phil

Date Submitted 4/25/2013 3:49:57 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 4/25/2013 11:57:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From consultant(Shoup):


Can the ability to fix the ends of floorbeams be added? This option is available for girders in a girder system and stringers in a girder-floorbeam system but not available for floorbeams.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 4/25/2013 12:04:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This option is also available for floor truss.


Incident 12433   

Folder /Support Center

Subject How to model precast, prestressed, rectangular beam with variable depth

Status Suspended

Submitted By Waheed, Amjad

Date Submitted 5/3/2013 6:07:13 PM

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description FROM: Amjad Waheed DATE: 5/3/2013 2:12:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

We have a county bridge which has exterior girders as precast, prestressed, pre-tensioned concrete, variable depth. How can we model that in Virtis? Any example will help. All interior beams are precast, prestressed, pre-tensioned I girders of constant depth.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/3/2013 3:28:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Currently variable depth P/S girder cannot be modeled in BrR. Please let me know if you want to switch this incident to an enhancement request. Thanks.


FROM: Amjad Waheed DATE: 5/7/2013 11:35:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Please add to the enhancement request.


Incident 12467   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Behavior of Shear Stirrup Wizard, after it generated the shear spacing

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 5/7/2013 7:41:19 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 5/7/2013 3:46:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I used the wizard to create the shear stirrup spacing. When I fired up the wizard, it checks whether shear stirrups exists for the girder and warn me about it. It was great.


After I generated the shear stirrup spacing, i figured I did not enter the values within wizard properly. I adjusted the spacing and then click the wizard to regenerate the spacing for me.


It tried to add to the existing shear rebar spacing. It should either require user to "Overwrite" the existing shear spacing.


FROM: Bin Zhang DATE: 5/8/2013 1:52:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

You are right, Vinacs. Each time you run the Stirrup Wizard, the existing stirrup reinforcement will be deleted. It will be a nice enhancement to have the option to add to the existing shear rebar spacing besides the “Overwrite” option.

I changed the category to Enhancement.


Incident 12469   

Folder /Support Center/Opis Sub

Subject Cancel Analysis Event

Status Suspended

Submitted By Wagner, Brad

Date Submitted 5/7/2013 7:58:24 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Brad Wagner DATE: 5/7/2013 4:00:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I've tested this enhancement in several places, and for some reason it will not work for LRFD Substructure Example 1. It seems to work for most other models except for models that run very quickly.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 7/8/2013 3:42:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The enhancement (Incident 9641) asked to add more checks for aborting the analysis of a single member alternative. The source code we modified are not shared between superstructure and substructure analyses. I'm changing this to an enhancement request for adding more checks for aborting substructure analysis.


Incident 12471   

Folder /Support Center

Subject User defined materials and beam shapes

Status Suspended

Submitted By Wagner, Brad

Date Submitted 5/7/2013 8:46:43 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Brad Wagner DATE: 5/7/2013 4:48:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I understand that the incident that this enhancement was based on only specifies materials and beam shapes, but I feel that it would be helpful to have this functionality for trucks, appurtenances and other library items. Can these be added?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/11/2013 10:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I changed this incident to an enhancement request.


FROM: Brad Wagner DATE: 5/21/2013 12:40:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time

How much effort is it to add a few additional fields? I think they would be very helpful, and they are in keeping with the intent of the incident, even though they were not clearly stated.


Incident 12480   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Testing VI 11562 enhancement - Graphic is missing Point Supports

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 5/8/2013 12:53:17 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 5/8/2013 8:59:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I was testing 6.5.0 Beta 1 and was evaluating the VI 11562 enhancement to allow top flange lateral support points.


I was able to add these individual points, ranges of points. But when I view the graphic of the beam - none of the point loads are displayed on the graphic.


In example - I added a range of points every 5 ft for 6 spaces. But the graphic does not display anything.


I was using Training Bridge 1 - Girder G2

I removed the uniform top flange lateral support and added the point supports.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 5/8/2013 9:16:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time

This is missing on the schematic for both girders and floor beams.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 5/8/2013 10:00:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Stringer schematic also does not reflect the point lateral points entered


FROM: Joseph Ihnat DATE: 5/13/2013 12:08:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This wasn't in the initial scope/estimate. Changed to enhancement request.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 5/13/2013 1:56:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This is clearly a case that demonstrates the TAG should have seen the scope, mockups and given a chance to review.


I think we'll need to seriously consider adding this. We can't just display hit and miss lateral supports.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 6/18/2013 4:05:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Please add this for consideration for 6.5.1 - this was something that was really overlooked and the TAG was not given an opportunity to review this mockup or scope.


Incident 12491   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Point Capacity Issue

Status Suspended

Submitted By Wagner, Brad

Date Submitted 5/8/2013 5:44:40 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Brad Wagner DATE: 5/8/2013 1:54:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time

When testing the point capacity override enhancement, it was noted that when adding an override to a hinge, I must create a point of interest that corresponds to the point of interest automatically generated by Virtis for the hinge location. However due to differing number of units allowed in the span length field, the hinge location field, and the point of interest field, it is virtually impossible to have the point of interest override location be at the exact location as the hinge.


I think it would very beneficial to have the ability to automatically place the point of interest in the POI list either 1) if selected or 2)always for hinges.


I've attached a model that demonstrates the two POI's that are .02 feet apart from each other, one overridden, and the other not.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 6/9/2013 10:04:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I used structure def 'Spans 1 and 2 Girderlines' and 'Typical Interior' girder in the attached bridge for my testing.


BrDR does not automatically create an analysis point at hinge locations.


I suspect you think that the analysis point at Span 2 6.88' (58.1850') is an automatically generated point for the hinge. But it is not. It is automatically generated because it is at the mid-point of the unbraced length.


The user is reponsible for entering a Point of Interest at the hinge location if he wants that point to be rated.


For this example, I entered a POI at 58.18767'. that matches the hinge located at 6.88767' into span 2.


I then see in the spec check details the following locations into span 2 were evaluated: 6.85 (POI created by you), 6.88 (analysis point generated at middle of unbraced length), 6.89 (POI that I entered).


Note that these locations are dependent on the System Defaults:Tolerance found in the Configuration Browser. I'm using the default tolerance for feet which is 0.001. That means points that are within 0.001' of each other are 'merged' into 1 point. You might be using a different tolerance.


Please respond in this issue if you would still like a POI to be created for you at the hinge locations. I'm thinking that would best be handled by a button on the hinge window 'Create POI's at Hinges'. That would be an enhancement request subject to TAG/TF approval.


FROM: Brad Wagner DATE: 6/10/2013 11:21:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Thank you for your response. It is as you suspected.


I would like a POI to be created, but I think it would be better handled as a POI wizard similar to what is available for reinforced concrete bridges. This would give us the ability to override locations other than hinges such as shear at supports of prestressed concrete bridges.


If I recall correctly, I thought we discussed this at the Beta TAG meeting in May. Is the POI wizard already a planned enhancement?


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 6/11/2013 12:45:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I wasn't involved in that discussion at the Beta TAG meeting. Herman - can you respond?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/14/2013 10:37:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The "Make POI wizard available for all structure types" is one of the Most Important UI improvements identified by the TAG in May. The Task Force asked us to estimate all the Most Important UI improvements for discussion and planning in the November Task Force meeting.


FROM: Brad Wagner DATE: 7/17/2013 10:26:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Accepted. Will wait on additional enhancement.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 8/12/2013 10:53:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Changed this incident to an enhancement request.


Incident 12497   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject LFD RC Slab Dist. Factor

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 5/8/2013 8:11:07 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 5/8/2013 4:12:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I am looking at a 36-48-36 RC Slab

If I use the LFD Dist. Factor calculation button for a 12” strip I get a moment DF = 0.156

I had calculated a DF = 0.162


The difference is BrR is using S = 40 (40’ is the avg of the 3 spans)

The way Kansas calculates this is S = 36 (36’ is the short span)

This has been our understanding of the std Spec. and what has been used on 100% of all our slab structures.


FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 5/8/2013 4:33:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Talking with the TAG, some use short span (36) which is conservative, some use avg (40), some use 36 for span 1 & 3 and 48 for span 2.

I seems we need to let the agency enter the value??


Incident 12543   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Member Load not showing up in Window

Status Suspended

Submitted By Kemna, Aaron

Date Submitted 5/20/2013 7:30:10 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 5/20/2013 3:51:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I entered a uniform load in the member loads window. Later, I opened the window and the load was missing. It shows up in the BWS report. I'll attach the bridge. This is a curved girder. I think this has to do with the model changes, but it may be real suttle. I changed the bridge offset at one point and this would have changed the girder length. I changed the offset back, and added a new load. I could then see the first load as distributed, but the new load was missing. Anyway, somethings off. Is there anyway we can keep uniform loads as uniform loads regardless of changes to the model?


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 6/1/2013 3:07:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Disappearing uniform load fixed for beta 3 (it was not related to the mbr length changing).


As for keeping uniform loads when the girder length changes, this window is behaving the same as it does for a straight girder system. When the member length of a straight girder changes, the uniform loads are not kept as uniform. Their length stays the same and they become distributed loads. Changing that behavior for straight and curved girders is an enhancement.


FROM: Aaron Kemna DATE: 6/24/2013 4:05:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Disappearing load seems to be fixed. As for the enhancement it would be better for the user to keep uniform loads seperate from distributed loads, but I would not want to make this change if it was too much work or if it would adversely affect outside engines. Accepting this incident.


Incident 12559   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject Enhancement request for reports/charts

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 5/23/2013 7:48:22 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 5/23/2013 3:49:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time

6.4.1

One of our designers had a good idea for reporting/output/charts


the option of providing a Service I line to your output “Results Graph” screen in the “Critical LRFD” loads. This will be very helpful in design since the code requires crack control on design sections.


Please add this to the Reports bucket. I'm not sure if this is a duplicate or not.


Incident 12562   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Clarification on LFR Culvert Output Requested

Status Suspended

Submitted By Murgoitio, Shanon

Date Submitted 5/24/2013 8:22:49 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Load Rater Shanon Murgoitio DATE: 5/24/2013 4:36:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Attached is an excerpt from the LFR output at midspan of the top slab of the attached culvert (Culvert Definition = Pox. M. Culvert Module). I am having difficulty determining if the proper load factors are being applied for the horizontal earth pressure. A beta factor of 0.5 should be used at this location for the EH loads per Article 3.20. The output does not indicate if the loads are factored or not, and the output for the LL does not indicate if impact is included or not. I would like clarification on how the AASHTO engine is applying the LFR load factors for horizontal earth pressure and request that labels be added to the output file to clarify the results.

Thank you,

Shanon Murgoitio


FROM: Wayne Skow DATE: 5/29/2013 7:45:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time


See the attached word document for explanation details.


The beta factor is specified in the soil material. Loads shown in the rating articles (6B.4) include impact, but are otherwise unfactored. The applied impact factor can be seen in the detailed output file (Click on the eye glasses. Select Detail Output. Search for impact). The three lines in the Envelope report show the max/min of each action with the corresponding values of the other two actions (note that max and min are not algebraic, but refer to the most positive and most negative values.)


Adding labels can be accomplished through an enhancement request.


FROM: Load Rater Shanon Murgoitio DATE: 5/29/2013 11:56:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Wayne,

Thank you for the clarification on the AASHTO LFR Culvert output. I would like to request an enhancement to add meaningful labels to the engine output.

Thank you,

Shanon Murgoitio


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/10/2013 10:07:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

I changed the Category to this incident to Enhancement.


Incident 12608   

Folder /Support Center/Opis

Subject LRFD Culvert - Limit States

Status Suspended

Submitted By Litchfield, Phil

Date Submitted 6/3/2013 11:00:35 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 6/3/2013 7:07:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I added additional limit states to be checked in the LRFD spec. None of the additional limit states were considered.


FROM: Phil Litchfield DATE: 6/6/2013 10:48:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time

By default Strength I & II, Service I and Fatigue I & II are selected for Reinforced Concrete in the 2012 AASHTO LRFD Specifications. Yet in a culvert analysis only Strength I and Service I look like they are being checked. Is the culvert analysis limited to Strength I and Service I only?


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 6/6/2013 10:48:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Yes, this is another case that user specified selection in the user interface is not being considered due to the original limitations of the box culvert program. I will prepare an estimate for the Task Force to review in next week meeting.


FROM: Herman Lee DATE: 5/29/2014 1:11:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time

2014 TAG decision: Change Category to Maintenance.


Incident 12642   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Analysis Charts - Request for additional Critical Loads

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 6/7/2013 6:29:44 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 6/7/2013 2:33:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Our designers have requested that it would be very useful in design to include moment and shear envelopes for Strength I, Strength II, Service I and Service III. Currently, only Strength I is shown under critical loads.


We should also make sure this falls in the "reports" bucket of enhancements.


Incident 12655   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Rating Summary Report - % Span column missing

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 6/12/2013 7:22:24 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: Girish Bhanushali DATE: 6/12/2013 3:23:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time

This issue is forked from 12653.


Comment below is copied from 12653.

////////

FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 6/12/2013 12:52:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Analysis Envet - Rating Summary Attributes does not contain Location by Span-(%) as well. Can we include that as well?

///


FROM: Girish Bhanushali DATE: 6/12/2013 3:40:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Additional information received from vinacs:


This applies to all relevant canned (abr) reports shipped.


This column is available on Tabular Results window in addition to the absolute location.


Primarily it needs to be confirmed if this is a bug to help determined it can be pursued as an enhancement to update all relevant canned report(s) to show that column.


Incident 12671   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Curved Steel Girder Diaphragm Wizard Improvement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 6/17/2013 7:00:01 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 6/17/2013 3:06:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In the case: Reference Line = Superstructure def. ref. line; and Diaphragm Spacing= Enter groups of equal spacing, the span information may be added in the data entry to make this function more efficient. See attached file for details.


Incident 12712   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Duplicate Bar Mark

Status Suspended

Submitted By Teal, Dean

Date Submitted 6/26/2013 12:43:06 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Dean Teal DATE: 6/26/2013 8:46:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Beta 3

Notice in my screen shot I have a duplicate bar mark (S14)

As far as I can tell they are identical

The program does give an error and allows this


Should duplicate bar mark names be allowed?


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 6/27/2013 9:07:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time

It looks like the current behavior is to not allow duplicate names for appurtenances but duplicate names are allowed for everything else (eg materials, beam shapes, diaphragm definitions, factors, weld definitions, shear connector definitions, stiffener definitions, stirrup definitions, bar mark definitions were tested and allowed to have duplicates). Folder changed to Support since this is not new to beta testing of 6.5.


Incident 12715   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Span length attribute should be added to "Girder Member"

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 6/26/2013 2:49:32 PM

Estimated Cost small

Description FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 6/26/2013 10:55:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Whe I create the BWS report, I noticed that the span length of individual girders cannot be reported. Please note the span length along the reference line does not always the span length of girders (for curve bridges and bridges with differing skewed support). When the data of individual girders are reviewed, span length of individual girders become an important item.


As a result, we would like to generate the span length of individual girder in the BWS report.


Incident 12716   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Data withinin BWS report should reflect the values entered into the software

Status Suspended

Submitted By vinayagamoorthy, vinacs

Date Submitted 6/26/2013 4:06:02 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: vinacs vinayagamoorthy DATE: 6/26/2013 12:08:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time

When we create the report, the BWS report round the values to nearest two or four decimal point (depending on display setting). Values should be reported as entered by the user or values established by the software, instead of truncating to the nearest tolerance.


Incident 12748   

Folder /Support Center

Subject It's Difficult To Modified Entries in Girder Profile

Status Suspended

Submitted By Huang, George

Date Submitted 7/8/2013 7:29:47 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: George Huang DATE: 7/8/2013 3:36:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In "Girder Profile", if there is mistake with missing line, it's difficult to modify the entries without modify all the line after the wrong entry or missing entry. It will be use full if there is function for insert a line, or enter a correct line at the end and move it correctly to the right position, and user can modify the rest lines. See attached file from the screen shot.


FROM: Krisha Kennelly DATE: 7/9/2013 10:41:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Tihs is an enhancement request to modify how data is entered in the Girder Profile window. Folder changed to support center.


Incident 12757   

Folder /Support Center/Virtis

Subject Refined Analysis - LRFR, MBE update - some incorrect LL factors

Status Suspended

Submitted By Thompson, Todd

Date Submitted 7/10/2013 4:49:53 PM

Estimated Cost extensive

Description FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 7/10/2013 12:54:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time

In a separate incident - the actuall Moment for live load is being calculated incorrectly by dividing 1.2 (taking out the multi-presence factor) but has been fixed for Beta 4.


As I was working through the various combinations of different permit types and the load factors for the permit vehicle, it appears there are some inaccuracies possibly.


Unlimited/Annual - appears to correctly follow 6A.4.5.4.2c - in which the table value is used plus 0.10


But for escorted and unescorted special permits - it appears to use only the table values - when it should use 1.1 (escorted) and 1.0 (unescorted).


I could not find if this was reported (and fixed) yet.


FROM: Todd Thompson DATE: 7/11/2013 8:11:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time

In addition -

For the same 2013 Interim Spec -

when Special Permits - mixed with traffic are evaluated using refined analysis - a live load factor of 1.0 is used for permit vehicle AND a 1.1 live load factor is applied on the governing AASHTO legal truck placedd in the adjacent lane. - I don't see where we are applying two live load factors and adding the truck moments together. We are only using the load effect with live load factor for the permit truck.


FROM: Jim Duray DATE: 7/12/2013 3:39:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time

We missed this when we planned and budgeted this spec update task. I'm changing this issue to a maintenance issue.


Incident 12764   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Custom Section Properties Enhancement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jackson, Amanda

Date Submitted 7/12/2013 7:55:46 PM

Estimated Cost large

Description FROM: Amanda Jackson DATE: 7/12/2013 4:04:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Requesting an enhancement that allows the user to enter custom section properties for a steel girder, floorbeam, or stringer. The user enters all section properties at each cross-section, and those section properties are used in the analysis. The need for this occurs when there are bridges with girder configurations that are not supported by BrDR. For example, we have several bridges in Montana with what we call a Transverse Girder. I've also heard of it as a Straddle Girder. It can be modeled as a floorbeam and faked in as a built-up steel section, but the section we have is truly a box shape. Modeling it as an I shape works for bending analysis, but the I shape has a much lower lateral and torsional stiffness than a box section, which can be problematic. If we were allowed to enter custom section properties that we hand-calculate, we could get around these types of problems without having to do a more complex enhancement that creates a completely new type of section to analyze. It would be useful in many situations where the bridge in the field doesn't quite match the type of configuration we are able to define in BrDR.


Incident 12818   

Folder /Support Center

Subject Lateral Deflections results are not listed "view analysis report"

Status Suspended

Submitted By Crudele, Brenda

Date Submitted 8/15/2013 3:10:23 PM

Estimated Cost medium

Description FROM: Brenda Crudele DATE: 8/15/2013 12:20:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

With the 3D engine the lateral deflections (or X deflections) are listed as zero in the view analysis report (tablular report giving moments/shears/deflections for each load case. Also since this is a 3D model there will be more than one lateral deflection at each POI along the bridge. Each node will have it's own XYZ deflections.


Request that all the nodal deflections be put together in a useful report. I don't want a list of the xyz deflections for every node number. I would like to see a meaningful report similar to the tabular reports so that is shows the distance along the girder and it is easily readable.


Incident BRDRSUP-48    

Folder /Support Center

Subject 3D-FEM Transverse Analysis for Roadway Widths from 18 to 20 Feet

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 8/28/2013

Estimated Cost large

Description

In the "AASHTO LRFD/LRFR Superstructure Method of Solution Manual", it only describes the analysis for roadway widths from 20 to 24 feet, where the vehicle loads are assumed to occupy 10 feet transversely (page 37). However there is no description regarding the transverse analysis for bridge with from 18 to 20 feet, where two traffic lanes may be used, and the vehicle load with cannot be 10 feet. Does the 3D analysis consider 2 lanes when bridge traffic widths are from 18 to 20 feet and button for "AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridge Article 6.7.2.2" is checked?


Incident BRDRSUP-49    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Lateral Bending (Warping) Moment Not Listed in the Curved Steel Girder Analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 8/28/2013

Estimated Cost medium

Description

The lateral bending or warping effect is very critical in the design and rating of curved steel girders. The total flange normal stress is the combination of stresses due to the vertical bending of the girder and lateral bending (or warping) moment of the flange. However in the AASHTO LFR engine for curved steel girder, this critical analysis results are now listed, only the common bending (vertical) moment and shear results are listed. The forces due to warping effect should be provided in the curved steel girder analysis.


Incident BRDRSUP-52    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Curved Steel Girder Longer than 300 Feet

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 8/30/2013

Estimated Cost small

Description

Currently AASHTO LFR Engine does not rate the curved steel girder with span longer than 300 feet (only perform the analysis but with incomplete analysis output), since the AASHTO Guide Specification apply to the girders "with spans up to 300 feet". The reason for this limitation as explained in the commentary (C.1.1 on page 13) is "because of the history of construction problems associated with curved bridges with spans greater than 300 feet. ……", and the commentary suggests using "more than one temporary support in large spans". However there is no mention about any limitation of the formulas used in the specification, which is unlike as the case for the limitation of 100 feet for "radii". The bridge I was trying to analyze is the interchange connecting I-80 to I-15 in Salt Lake City, Utah. The bridge model was included in VI-12750. Since the LFR engine is not for design or construction support, and the bridge is already built, I suggest to make an enhancement to include the rating (specification check) for spans longer than 300 feet. It is better to have the ratings with some warnings than no rating at all.


Incident BRDRSUP-69    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Analysis and Rating of Curved Floor System

Status Suspended

Submitted By Hemendra Bhatt

Date Submitted 9/20/2013

Estimated Cost extensive

Description

Submitted on behalf of Hemendra Bhatt, MassDOT.


Incident BRDRSUP-71    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Noncomposite Section to Be Included in the Curved Steel Plate Girder Rating

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 9/20/2013

Estimated Cost extensive

Description

Curved steel plate girder rating analysis in BrR 6.5 is based on AASHTO Guide Specs 2003 edition, where shear studs are required for both positive and negative moment ranges. So the composite section is used for the entire bridge. This is a big change from the previous Guide Specs (1993 edition), where shear studs were not used in the negative moment range. All curved steel plate girder bridges designed with ASD or LFD before 2003 had non-composite sections, and cannot be rated with the BrR 6.5. Non-composite section has to be included in the rating of curved steel plate girder.


Incident BRDRSUP-93    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Choose Steel Section Library Based on the Year of Publication

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 10/16/2013

Estimated Cost medium

Description

According to the e-mail from Dean Teal, the rolled section properties published by AISC may be included in the library with different years of publication. It may be beneficial for user, especially the designer, to choose section library based on the year of publication.


Incident BRDRSUP-97    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Support the MPF reduction due to the low ADTT

Status Suspended

Submitted By Ben Zhang

Date Submitted 10/24/2013

Estimated Cost small

Description

AASHTO LRFD/LRFR does not consider the MPF reductions due to the low ADTT when calculating the live load distribution factors. I add this enhancement request on behalf of IN DOT to consider the MPF reduction from the ADTT number. The communication email was listed below. ********************************************************************************************** Please add an enhancement request accordingly. Thank You Raju R. Iyer, PE Load Rating Engineer Indiana Department of Transportation 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642 Indianapolis, In. 46204 317-233-3840 riyer@indot.in.gov From: Zhang, Bin [mailto:Bin.Zhang@mbakercorp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:49 AM To: Hart, Jennifer Cc: Iyer, Raju; Hankins, Sean; Lesh, Jim; Lee, Herman Subject: RE: Exterior vs Interior Beam LLD Factors Jennifer, Currently the program does not support the MPF reduction due to the low ADTT, you may have to override the LLDF manually (figure 1). I could add an enhancement request for you to consider the MPF reduction from the ADTT number. Figure 1 LLDF window Thanks! Ben Ben Zhang Ph.D., E.I.T. | Civil Associate | Michael Baker Jr. Inc. 100 Airside Drive | Moon Township, PA 15108 | Office: (412) 375-3008 From: Hart, Jennifer [mailto:JenniferH@ucindy.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:04 AM To: Zhang, Bin Cc: riyer@indot.IN.gov; Hankins, Sean; Lesh, Jim Subject: RE: Exterior vs Interior Beam LLD Factors Ben, Thank you for your time and assistance. With respect to the model discussed in the email below, the exterior beam is controlled by the single lane loaded with a LLD factor of 0.887. Independent hand calculations confirm the Lever Rule LLD factor. They do not confirm the MPF Virtis used. This structure has low ADTT (100 trucks) and the MPF could be pro-rated to 1.08 instead of 1.2, resulting in a Single Lane LLD factor of 0.798 instead of 0.887. Going through the Virtis LRFR help it appears neither the Virtis 6.4.1 or Virtis 5.1 engine supports this reduction due to low truck traffic. From AAHSTO LRFD C3.6.1.1.2-1 Is there a better option than overriding the Single Lane LLD Factor? Will Virtis be supporting this in the future? Thank you, Jennifer L. Hart, PE United Consulting P: 317-895-2585 F: 317-895-2596 jenniferh@ucindy.com From: Zhang, Bin [mailto:Bin.Zhang@mbakercorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:26 AM To: Hart, Jennifer Cc: Lee, Herman Subject: RE: Exterior vs Interior Beam LLD Factors Jennifer, I am able to reproduce the live load actions you showed in the PDF file. In fact, Virtis is using the LLDF of 0.887 other than 0.781 (figure 1). Please note that for multi-lane structures, the program will use the larger of the single-lane and multi-lane LLDF (figure 2). 2672.1 x 0.781 / 0.887 = 2352.77 kip-ft, which is pretty close to the static analysis results (2340.3 kip-ft) you provided. Please feel free to let me know if you still have questions about this. Figure 1 Live load actions summary Figure 2 LLDF Thanks, Ben Ben Zhang Ph.D., E.I.T. | Civil Associate | Michael Baker Jr. Inc. 100 Airside Drive | Moon Township, PA 15108 | Office: (412) 375-3008 **********************************************************************************************


Incident BRDRSUP-110    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Copy Shear Reinforcement Ranges

Status Suspended

Submitted By Phil Litchfield

Date Submitted 11/15/2013

Estimated Cost small

Description

Adding the ability to copy shear reinforcement ranges from one member alternative to another would be a big time saver when editing prestressed members. Currently you can copy strand layouts, mild steel layouts, deck profile and the live load distribution.


Incident BRDRSUP-114    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Analysis of Trusses

Status Suspended

Submitted By Phil Litchfield

Date Submitted 11/19/2013

Estimated Cost large

Description

Enhancements - Enable inclusion of Truss alternates within a Superstructure Definition. Currently the only way to have a truss alternate definition is to create and entirely separated Superstructure Definition. - Provide the option to prevent analysis of a truss when a Superstructure or total Bridge analysis is requested, just like we can do for all other structural elements such as main girders, floorbeams & stringers.


Incident BRDRSUP-115    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Stringer Unit Layout Names

Status Suspended

Submitted By Phil Litchfield

Date Submitted 11/19/2013

Estimated Cost small

Description

Enhancement - Enable editing of Stringer Unit Layout names. Currently the program names these as "Stringer Unit (number) Layout" with ‘number’ being an integer starting with 1 and sequencing up to the total number of panels between floorbeams. This name cannot be modified even though it is often at odds with the panel number sequence and nomenclature utilized on the plans.


Incident BRDRSUP-130    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Culvert Module - Skewed Reinforcement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Phil Litchfield

Date Submitted 12/28/2013

Estimated Cost large

Description

Add the ability to define slab reinforcement parallel to the skew instead of perpendicular to the walls.


Incident BRDRSUP-135    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Request the ability to run a 3D FEA analysis for Dead Load Only

Status Suspended

Submitted By Brenda Crudele

Date Submitted 1/3/2014

Estimated Cost medium

Description

I would like an option to be able to run just dead loads (non-composite and composite) for a 3D FEA analysis. This option would not provide a code check, influence surfaces, or any live load outputs. It would just provide moments, shears, and deflections (in all directions). When setting up a model especially for a curved girder I think there is great benefit during preliminary design to set up your model and verify dead load reactions and deflections before moving on to live loads. Removing the live load analysis and code check would greatly reduce run times.


Incident BRDRSUP-138    

Folder /Support Center

Subject NSG vehicle analysis on Floor System Superstructures

Status Suspended

Submitted By David Warner

Date Submitted 1/7/2014

Estimated Cost extensive

Description

Add the capability to analyze Floor System Superstructures using non-standard gage vehicles.


Incident BRDRSUP-147    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add code to culvert engine to generate an RTU file for regression testing.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Wayne Skow

Date Submitted 1/21/2014

Estimated Cost small

Description

The culvert engine does not have the code needed to generate an RTU file when the Regression Data switch is selected in output options. This task is to add that code.


Incident BRDRSUP-190    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Support Settlement works in BRASS LFD and not AASHTO LFD

Status Suspended

Submitted By Dean Teal

Date Submitted 3/5/2014

Estimated Cost large

Description

Settlement is supported by: BRASS LFD BRASS LRFR – but returns all zeros (so I guess it doesn’t work) Settlement is not supported by: AASHTO LFD, LRFD, LRFR The AASHTO LFD engine is not providing all the functionality of the BRASS LFD engine provided like it is supposed to.


Incident BRDRSUP-208    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Limits of Shear Stiffener Spacing in Curved Steel LFR Engine

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 3/13/2014

Estimated Cost medium

Description

In the current Guide Spec, for transversely stiffened girder, stiffener spacing limits are determined by Eq. (6-7a), or Eq. (6-7b), for internal panel, and 0.5D for end panel. If these limits are exceeded, the LFR engine will treat the web as unstiffened. These limits (except Eq.6-7b) were created in 1980 when the Guide Spec was created. Many curved steel bridges designed before 1980 may have stiffener spacing larger than these limits, where shear spacing could be as large as 1.5D at internal panels and D at end supports based on previous AASHTO Specs. Ignoring the shear stiffener will greatly reduced the shear capacity and overall bridge ratings. In the current AASHTO LRFD Spec, the shear stiffener spacing, for both straight and curved bridges, is limited to, 3D for internal panels, and 1.5D at end panels of girders without longitudinal stiffeners, 1.5D for girders with longitudinal stiffeners. I suggest expand the shear stiffener spacing limits in LFR engine to match those in LRFD spec.


Incident BRDRSUP-209    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Shear Capacity of Curved Steel Girder for Internal Panels

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 3/13/2014

Estimated Cost medium

Description

In the Guide Spec, the post-buckling shear strength of stiffened curved web panels is ignored for internal panels. But this additional capacity was included in the AASHTO Std Spec for straight bridge. Currently the AASHTO LRFD Spec includes this post-buckling shear strength of stiffened web at internal panel locations for both straight and curved steel bridge. Including the post-buckling shear strength may be important for old bridges, as well as new bridges designed with LRFD for some states, such as New York, where the LFR may be used for permit ratings. I suggest providing user the option to include the post-buckling shear strength for internal panels.


Incident BRDRSUP-210    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Web Slenderness for Transversely Stiffened Curved Steel Girder

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 3/13/2014

Estimated Cost medium

Description

Many curved bridges designed before 2003 have web slenderness more than 150 and are transversely stiffened only. The current LFR engine for curved bridge will consider these girder as unstiffened when calculating the shear capacity. This approach greatly reduces the shear capacity and leads to the unreasonable low ratings. I suggest that the LFR engine will give a warning message if the web slenderness exceeds the 150, and rate the girder based on the actual transverse stiffeners. The detail explaination is included in the attached file, "Dt_Limit.docx"


Incident BRDRSUP-213    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Use the average Kg to calculate the LLDF when Kg is different for the left side and right side of the node

Status Suspended

Submitted By Murugesu Vinayagamoorthy

Date Submitted 3/14/2014

Estimated Cost small

Description

I submitted this enhancement request on behalf of Vinacs from Caltrans. Currently the BrDR program uses the Kg value established right side of a node. It's proposed that the software should first check whether Kg is the same for left and right side of the node; if they are different, it should utilize the average Kg (1/2 of value established using left side of the node and right side of the node).


Incident BRDRSUP-228    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Timber Design and Rating Application

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jeff Olsen

Date Submitted 4/3/2014

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description

Develop a tool to perform Design and Rating for timber bridges. Include both LRFD\LRFR and ASD. This could be a stand alone tool that can work both inside and outside of BrDR. It should be developed to allow licensing independently of BrDR so it can me marketed to agencies and consultants that do not license BrDR. The tool should handle: Sawn plank, Nail laminated, Glulam Continuous span timber – with corrections. Non-Standard Gage capability. Timber substructure.


Incident BRDRSUP-236    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Consider development length of deck reinforcement

Status Suspended

Submitted By Cody Parker

Date Submitted 4/16/2014

Estimated Cost large

Description

Enhancement request based on email from Jens Hurst on behalf of Cody: Email chain is pasted below: ======================================================== From: Jens Hurst [mailto:jenshurst@HNTB.com] Sent: Monday, April 7, 2014 4:56 PM To: BrDR Cc: Cody Parker Subject: Development Length Check Good afternoon, I am working on rating a prestressed girder bridge with a concrete deck and it appears that there is an issue in computing the development length in the deck reinforcement. I ran three different scenarios and looked at the flexural resistance in the specification check for G3 for each scenario. The first run was with one layer of the negative moment steel cut short before the point of interest, the second run, that layer of steel was cut off right at the point of interest, and the third run was with the layer of steel extended past the point of interest by 4.2 feet. The issue that concerns me is that the flexural capacity is the same for scenarios 2 & 3. The reinforcement seems to act in an all-or-nothing capacity. I have attached a spreadsheet with the spec check for the "Flexural Resistance (Prestressed Concrete)" at Span 2-11.80 ft. Is there a way to have the program consider the development length of the deck reinforcement so I don’t have to manually calculate the development length and compensate for that in my input? Is this an issue that is being addressed by your team? Please let me know if you need any further clarification. Thanks for your help, Jens Hurst Bridge Engineer HNTB Corporation 257 East 200 South, Ste 1000 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Tel (801) 656-2101 Fax (801) 656-2102 www.hntb.com ======================================================== There is no workaround available for the above user request.


Incident BRDRSUP-237    

Folder /Support Center

Subject 3D analysis for adjacent PS beams with no deck

Status Suspended

Submitted By Herman Lee

Date Submitted 4/16/2014

Estimated Cost large

Description

Enhance the AASHTO 3D Engine to support analyzing adjacent PS beams (box beam, I or tee beam with deck included) with 0.0 deck thickness entered in the typical section. Model the top slab/flange using shell elements and the beam properties should be without the top slab/flange. Shell thicknesses can be different in different girder lines.


Incident BRDRSUP-242    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Schematic of the haunch for U beam is not consistent with normal practice in the NMDOT

Status Suspended

Submitted By Gary Kinchen

Date Submitted 4/28/2014

Estimated Cost large

Description

For the NMDOT's typical U beam bridge, the haunch is constructed only across the upper flange legs and does not extend across the void. In the program section properties of U beam with haunch are calculated with haunch only on flanges but schematic and dead load computation are considered for entire with as the Haunch window does not provided with all the required detailed information to consider haunch just over the flanges of U beam. To resolve BRDRSUP-58 Issue 1 would be an enhancement for haunch details window to accommodate more details.


Incident BRDRSUP-260    

Folder /Support Center

Subject The diaphragms defined in the structure framing plan details also need to have the ability to have a user defined load case.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Brenda Crudele

Date Submitted 5/13/2014

Estimated Cost medium

Description

Referred from Brenda's comment in BRDRBETA-200: "The diaphragms defined in the structure framing plan details also need to have the ability to have a user defined load case.


Incident BRDRSUP-263    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Add adjacent vehicles for a permit vehicle for LRFD Design Review for 3D Analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Brenda Crudele

Date Submitted 5/14/2014

Estimated Cost large

Description

Request enhancement for adjacent vehicle for the permit vehicle for LRFD design review for a 3D analysis. I am not concerned with a line girder analysis. Would like to have the ability to run a design permit vehicle under Strength II load case with adjacent vehicle of HL-93 in the 3D model. The enhancement would be more flexible if the user could define the load factor for the adjacent vehicle. Request for output showing visual locations of vehicles for load cases.


Incident BRDRSUP-264    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Fine Element Mesh Near Supports In 3D Analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By George Huang

Date Submitted 5/15/2014

Estimated Cost large

Description

During our 3D FEM analysis (with SAP2000) for curved steel girder bridges, it was found the element mesh size is critical at the negative moment range near bents, where the magnitude of moment changes dramatically within a very small distance. In BrDR, user cannot specify different mesh sizes in the analysis. If small mesh size is used everywhere, it may take too long to analyze. It will be helpful if BrDR can automatically generate smaller element sizes at locations where force magnitudes change dramatically, and/or provide some way for user to adjust the mesh sizes at these locations.


Incident BRDRSUP-265    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Wind loads applied to 3D model for analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jeff Olsen

Date Submitted 5/15/2014

Estimated Cost extensive

Description

When a wind load is included in the model and 3D analysis is selected, apply the wind load to the 3Dmodel for the analysis instead of just adding lateral stresses after the 3D analysis is complete.


Incident BRDRSUP-269    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Remove "Uniform Load Contraflexure Points" from view analysis report

Status Suspended

Submitted By Brenda Crudele

Date Submitted 5/13/2014

Estimated Cost small

Description

Please remove the "Uniform Load Contraflexure Points" chart from view analysis report in version 6.6. This information is useful, but this is not the correct location to report the information. Users get confused thinking that this is a load case for the bridge. See attached screen shot of table I am describing.


Incident BRDRSUP-274    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Superstructure Wizard not working with Culvert

Status Suspended

Submitted By Dean Teal

Date Submitted 5/14/2014

Estimated Cost medium

Description

When trying to create a Bridge Alt using the Superstructure Wizard it fails to work The Superstructure Definition window never populates. It only includes "none"


Incident BRDRSUP-277    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Wizard will not delete UD POI in RC Slab

Status Suspended

Submitted By Dean Teal

Date Submitted 5/21/2014

Estimated Cost small

Description

I have a RC Slab with many UD POI's I used the POI wizard to delete them I went thru all the steps and it did nothing - I selected all boxes on the Delete tab of the POI wizard - I have to delete them one at a time


Incident BRDRSUP-278    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Escape Key inconsistencies

Status Suspended

Submitted By Jeff Ruby

Date Submitted 5/5/2014

Estimated Cost Scope Reqd

Description

This occurs when in windows like Deck Profile, Shear Reinforcement Ranges or the like. When you click in a cell to enter data, sometimes the cursor is blinking at the location you clicked for inserting characters or numbers. Other times the whole cell is highlighted for you to replace the entire contents. I have been in the habit of hitting the escape key to "exit" this mode. Sometime I want insert, and at other times I want replace all. The issue comes when I am expecting the "escape key" to Only escape from this mode. What happens is that the whole window closes instead. This is very annoying when I just spent 10 minutes entering data in that window. So, I guess the real issue is that I don't get a confirmation when closing the window with unsaved data. To test this, I just started randomly opening data input forms on the bridge tree. What I found is that sometimes escape only exits the input data field, and other time the whole window closes.


Incident BRDRSUP-279    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Existing Column detail of ONE Pier could not be copied to ANOTHER Pier.

Status Suspended

Submitted By Murugesu Vinayagamoorthy

Date Submitted 5/8/2014

Estimated Cost small

Description

See More details in the attached document


Incident BRDRSUP-283    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Request Enhancement for User Defined Lateral Stress at POI for Line Girder Analysis

Status Suspended

Submitted By Brenda Crudele

Date Submitted 5/15/2014

Estimated Cost large

Description

Request enhancement for user defined factored lateral stress at a point of interest. In the LRFD many of the equations have a term for flange lateral bending. This term cannot be calculated from a line girder analysis, but it would be very useful if the user could define there own value. Request that this gets added to the point of interest window. The input would be for factored flange lateral stress and there would need to be inputs for top and bottom flanges.


Incident BRDRSUP-284    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Request Wizard for laying out Lateral Bracing

Status Suspended

Submitted By Brenda Crudele

Date Submitted 5/14/2014

Estimated Cost medium

Description

This is a request for a wizard for inputing lateral bracing. As it is now, for a curved bridge or a straight bridge with a skew, the user will have to input every lateral brace individually. See attached screen shots showing some attempts at layouts. For the most part lateral bracing will be attached at diaphragm points and/or half way between diaphragm points.


Incident BRDRSUP-285    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Copy Lateral Bracing to another Bay needs to have an option for mirror to another bay

Status Suspended

Submitted By Brenda Crudele

Date Submitted 5/14/2014

Estimated Cost small

Description

Coping lateral bracing from one bay to another is not necessarily useful. For curved girder bridges we include lateral bracing in the fascia bays, but they are a mirror of each other. See attached screen shot showing the framing plan from BRDR with bracing copied from bay 1 to bay 3 versus how it would be detailed in plans. In order for the copy command to be useful it need to have an option for copy/mirror.


Incident BRDRSUP-288    

Folder /Support Center

Subject Delete POI's by selecting several of them

Status Suspended

Submitted By Dean Teal

Date Submitted 5/22/2014

Estimated Cost small

Description

Vinics added this comment to BRDRBETA-265 so I entered it as a seperate enhancement request When deleting User Defined POI's, for all structure types, would like the ability to: - Delete All - Delete Selection