|
|
PS7 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
100.0 |
50.0 |
25.0 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
10.0 |
|
|
|
|
Average |
90.2 |
46.5 |
21.1 |
4.3 |
8.7 |
9.6 |
|
|
|
|
Codename |
|
Material/Constraints/Loads (1+7+2) |
Optimal Design Accuracy |
Web_Thickness=0.375 |
RIBs On=0 1 1 |
Report |
Late Time |
Late penalty factor (1.0 / 0.7 / 0.4 / 0) |
Comments |
|
Anchorage , Alaska |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Mesa , Arizona |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Lincoln , Nebraska |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Fremont , California |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Washington , DC |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
St. Petersburg , Florida |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Tucson , Arizona |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Minneapolis , Minnesota |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Honolulu CDP, Hawaii |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Raleigh , North Carolina |
100 |
50 |
25 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Jacksonville , Florida |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Denver , Colorado |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Cincinnati , Ohio |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Santa Ana , California |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Boston , Massachusetts |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Louisville , Kentucky |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Sacramento , California |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Wichita , Kansas |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Anaheim , California |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Jersey , New Jersey |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Fresno , California |
99 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Seattle , Washington |
98 |
50 |
23 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Dallas , Texas |
98 |
50 |
23 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Las Vegas , Nevada |
97 |
50 |
22 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Los Angeles , California |
97 |
50 |
22 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Stockton , California |
97 |
50 |
22 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
San Francisco , California |
96 |
50 |
21 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Plano , Texas |
96 |
47 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
Use no separation/sliding instead of frictionless constraint |
|
Milwaukee , Wisconsin |
96 |
47 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
use fixed instead of pin |
|
Columbus , Ohio |
95 |
47 |
23 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
Use fixed constraint instead of pin constraint |
|
Omaha , Nebraska |
95 |
50 |
20 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
New Orleans , Louisiana |
95 |
50 |
20 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Phoenix , Arizona |
94 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
10 |
5 |
|
1 |
no final value report submission |
|
Memphis , Tennessee |
94 |
50 |
19 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Glendale , Arizona |
94 |
50 |
19 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Buffalo , New York |
94 |
50 |
24 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Cleveland , Ohio |
92 |
44 |
23 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
Use pin instead of frictionless contact, extra separation contact |
|
Tampa , Florida |
92 |
47 |
20 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
extra separation contact |
|
Portland , Oregon |
92 |
44 |
23 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
pin not defined correctly, 1 extra separation contact |
|
Laredo , Texas |
92 |
50 |
22 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Hialeah , Florida |
92 |
44 |
23 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
2pins constraint are wrong, and lack one fixed constraint |
|
Indianapolis, Indiana |
91 |
44 |
22 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
use pin instead of frictionless, pin is not correct |
|
Arlington , Texas |
91 |
47 |
19 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
No frictionless used |
|
San Antonio , Texas |
91 |
44 |
22 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
lack pins and frictionless constraints |
|
Corpus Christi , Texas |
90 |
47 |
23 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
Frictionless on wrong surface |
|
Norfolk , Virginia |
90 |
47 |
18 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
one constraint is wrong |
|
Virginia Beach , Virginia |
89 |
44 |
20 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
use pin instead of frictionless for bolt hole, pin constraint not
correct defined |
|
Oakland , California |
89 |
44 |
20 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
there are 6 pins constraints , 4 of them should be frictionless
constraints in fact |
|
Fort Wayne , Indiana |
88 |
44 |
19 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
Use fixed instead of pin, no fixed on base |
|
Toledo , Ohio |
88 |
44 |
24 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
lack pins and frictionless constraints |
|
El Paso , Texas |
86 |
44 |
22 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
there are 6 pins constraints , 4 of them should be frictionless
constraints in fact |
|
Austin , Texas |
83 |
44 |
19 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
there are 5 pins constraints ,3of them should be frictionless
constraints in fact |
|
Baton Rouge , Louisiana |
82 |
50 |
17 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Baltimore , Maryland |
82 |
50 |
17 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
Kansas , Missouri |
79 |
44 |
15 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
1 extra fixed constrain, use bond instead of frictionless constraint |
|
Atlanta , Georgia |
79 |
44 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
1 extra fixed, use fixed instead of pin |
|
Long Beach , California |
77 |
47 |
15 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
Report file can not be open correctly. |
|
Riverside , California |
76 |
41 |
15 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
|
1 |
No pin and frictionless constraint, extra bonded contact |
|
St. Paul , Minnesota |
74 |
44 |
15 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
pin and frictionless constraint not defined correctly |
|
Tacoma , Washington |
74 |
44 |
15 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
|
1 |
there are 6 pins constraints , 4 of them should be frictionless
constraints in fact |
|
Charlotte , North Carolina |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
no files |
|
St. Louis , Missouri |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
no files |
|
|
|
|