German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish I would like to share with you two mistakes I noticed in İdecad. Is there something I am misunderstanding? First of all, in rib (more precisely, cassette flooring) designs, I usually take the width of the main tooth as 10 cm, and the width of the transverse tooth, which should be placed after 4 meters, is 15 cm, for example N101 (10-15/32). However, although the program correctly takes and calculates the width of 15 cm transverse teeth in mold plan drawings and calculation reports, it draws these 15 cm transverse teeth as 10 cm in cassette tooth openings. I'm not correcting these drawings but it looks ridiculous. So where does this error come from? The 2nd one gets the mesh generation procedure wrong when preparing the finite element mesh of two screens with different heights, or rather the panel object. Ok, I understand that the program automatically creates a mesh with quad elements according to the height of the screen, but between the two intersecting screens, at least the degrees of freedom in the intersection line (contact region) must be assigned a rigid connection. Since the program does not do this, the two intersecting panel objects move independently of each other, which should not be the case, because the degrees of freedom corresponding to the close or overlapping nodal points on the intersection line of the two curtains are equal degrees of freedom and must move together. In short, two intersecting curtain objects with different heights work independently of each other. As a result, faulty mass and stiffness matrices lead to different internal forces and reinforcement design. I'm doing the solution of this manually, but such an ambitious and beautiful program should not have such a big shortcoming. I'm not sure about the first of these observations, but the program in the second item makes mistakes every time.
2 Mistakes that caught my eye
- Thread starter Godfrey
- Start date
- Status
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, The situation you are talking about occurs when you analyze according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option. Semi-rigid diaphragm solution for now If you are going to do it, give the thickness of the teeth in different directions in the cassette flooring the same value.If the thickness of the teeth should be different in two directions, solve with the full rigid diaphragm option... add your project. The"Godfrey":17e0aiie" said:
In case two panels modeled as shells have different heights, the smallest value of the common multiples must be entered as the finite element width for them to work together.( Or, by placing columns on the junction of the panels, the curtains can work together. Good work
First of all, thank you for your interest, Mr. Levent. However, if you publish the shortcomings of the program in a statement, at least we will not get into funny situations in the office and on the construction site. 1. The problem I mentioned is an insignificant one, the building inspection and municipal investigation desk doesn't say anything, but should we call the construction site later and get the width of the transverse teeth 10 or 15 cm or what? There comes a question like, it is very frustrating to hear such a sarcastic sentence for a project that I have drawn perfectly in every detail. In addition, if I cannot analyze rib and cassette slabs with semi-rigid diaphragms, what is the meaning of such an option, and you know, analyzes made with the assumption of full and semi-rigid diaphragm make a big difference in terms of internal forces and reinforcement design. The second problem I mentioned is extremely dangerous. I usually encounter this problem in the design of basement curtains, but what if this problem occurs at the intersection of two main carrier curtains of different heights. The model made is completely wrong. Come on, I am aware of the problem and I have methods to fix it, but those who do not know or realize the problem at all will make a big mistake. Yes, the program does the finite element procedure correctly for shear-column connections, but I don't accept your suggestion to put a column between the walls so that the degrees of freedom work together in the infinitely rigid connection ancestor. And "For two panels modeled as shells to work together if they are of different heights, the smallest value of the common multiples now needs to be entered as the finite element width." your suggestion is correct, but I don't know of anyone who has neither the time nor the ability to calculate it for each pitch intersection of different heights. In addition, if we intervene in the finite element network for two curtains with different heights, the 3rd, 4th and other curtain connections that are connected to these curtains and whose heights are the same as these curtains become inoperative. It's supposed to be a procedure that connects the degrees of freedom in the contact region (as in ansys). I know it's not easy to code something like this, but it has to be done. I did not see the need to add a project because these 2 problems are the lack of the program and I encounter it in every project I do. No offense, but that's what it is. Also, publish the notes "This is among our notes" collectively so that we do not make a mistake that we do not know. Once, there were many foundation beams in a structure with a continuous foundation, they called the construction site because the reinforcement length in one of the continuous foundation beams was 14 m. Believe me, it would be better if I went underground. He kept that he would not control the iron lengths, whatever the reason was within the project. Ok, the program adjusts the iron lengths of the continuous foundation between the two columns according to the combinations, such as column curtains, etc., it does not make overlaps for assembly and flat reinforcement in the opening, but if the length of the foundation beam goes to infinity, it means that the length of the iron will go to infinity. I found out later about this error and why, but after getting a warning. If I had known of course I would manually fix these overlays and iron lengths in autocad
saridurmus
New Member
It is said that a program can do it, not the shortcomings of it, you will see it in any program on earth. These softwares are omnipotent and don't know what the users' requests will be. If what we can do in the package program is not enough, we solve our need either manually or if another program is doing that request. If you look at the program descriptions, you will see what it can do. In addition, I saw what was added in the new version we saw at the Fair, there will be requests from us users so that our friends in R&D can add something new.
My colleague, Mr. saridurmus, you are right, I agree with what you said, but it is not ethical or scientific not to mention a critical flaw of the program in terms of programming. I have been using the idecad static program since 2008 and it is really the best among its competitors at the moment. But there are insignificant deficiencies, there are functional disorders that can lead to critical errors. It is a critical error that can affect the mass and stiffness matrices of the open system number 2, which I mentioned in my article above, the internal forces of the elements and the system, and the reinforcement design. For example, this error leads to different results in the sizing and reinforcement of the foundation system, whether it is a raft foundation or a continuous foundation system, in a structure where bulkheads of different heights and basement walls are combined. Because the panel objects that need to interact work independently at the intersection points (6 degrees of freedom at each node), the moments of inertia and internal force distributions of the elements and the system are far from what they should be on the foundation. Also, I don't understand why this vulnerability hasn't caught anyone's attention until now, or if no one is examining the modal shapes and deformations of the structure. Ins. Eng. Kerem GURBUZ
The mistake you mentioned is generally different level building entrances etc. on the basement perimeter curtains. It happens in situations where it happens, but it is not an issue that I care about because it occurs on a rigid floor. It is possible that it will happen after flooding and it is true that the results will change, but it did not happen to me. There will be some bugs in the program, of course. This is a much more serious problem than what you said. I have seen projects where the outer columns are constantly crossed with the foundation and the middle of the raft is solved and brought into the municipality. In these systems, the program min. equipment piles up. Shouldn't the engineer say "what's that" when he sees that pleat? But it doesn't try. However, this is an issue that is shouted loudly by the ide team. So what should the program do? shouldn't the engineer know that much? It's not that he squirms when he says "what are you doing," he says, "I am an engineer"... There are other problems, and we always find solutions by sharing here and on the phone... Also, my personal opinion is that I fire the master who calls 14m from the construction site. Namely, the master knows how to throw that equipment and knows where to put it on. There is 14m of equipment in the project, he said should we boil it or give a special order to Iskenderun?. It is hard work to produce 0 error projects..."Godfrey":3rhokuu1" said:
saridurmus
New Member
Siromar, as you said, the team making the program interprets the regulations and writes a program. Here it is as much as the vocabulary of that person, and our duty is to enlarge that vocabulary, which is formed by the wishes of the members. While testing the program, the more options are presented to the friend in R&D, the more it will be tried. That's why this forum has been opened to users and new ideas have been received and the program has reached this level. Let's list the missing or not covered issues so that the program can develop.
mhanifiata
New Member
by the way, the basic system, ribs, cassettes, etc. from the esteemed authorities. We were informed that their designs could be reconsidered. There may also be new studies in column detailing. this time, the most intense work is related to steel. It would be nice if more different approaches could be added to the software for faulty continuous foundation + raft type designs mentioned by siromar. Of course, with the arrangements in the drawings. On the curtains with the aforementioned difference in elevation, I also use a column at the elevation change point. I would also like to point out here that in general the software team has addressed every point mentioned in the forum. Every subject is discussed, regardless of whether it is big or small, important or unimportant. most of them are reflected in the structure of the software. I think many innovations will come with the 8 version. like a nicer result review interface, for example. It's like menus with better visuals without drowning in numbers...I wonder if there is an excel addition about quantity. 
mhanifiata
New Member
further, we may see a general structure analysis software on the horizon. wooden building, prefabricated building...post-tensioned flooring systems... 
I actually think that we should make the issue a national issue and put on the agenda even the ways of producing world software with a stronger financial structure. we all know sap90 software. Let's take a look at where it is now. How things went up step by step. but no software company has such a strong communication network with its customers. That's why the forum does a lot of work. Maybe we are asking too much if we want the haa forum to have a better interface and integrate with other social networks in the near future. If I understand a little about these things, I will do it myself...
I actually think that we should make the issue a national issue and put on the agenda even the ways of producing world software with a stronger financial structure. we all know sap90 software. Let's take a look at where it is now. How things went up step by step. but no software company has such a strong communication network with its customers. That's why the forum does a lot of work. Maybe we are asking too much if we want the haa forum to have a better interface and integrate with other social networks in the near future. If I understand a little about these things, I will do it myself... Yes, your model has the same error (which is not caused by you and cannot be noticed by the program). From the pictures I have attached, you can see that the degrees of freedom that should work as equal degrees of freedom work independently. And this leads to the creation of different stiffness and mass matrices than they should be, and thus different results. It is possible to see this situation from the stress distributions in the shell elements. One of the positive points for the system model is that the shell elements are connected to the bar elements near the joint points with infinite rigid links in the floor planes. The second is that the shell elements with the same height within the floors and intersecting shell elements work as equal degrees of freedom due to the overlapping of the nodal points (the degrees of freedom of the quad elements at the same levels coincide since they are in the same coordinates geometrically). However, apart from the floor planes, many degrees of freedom (contact region) work independently, contrary to what they should be. This phenomenon, which no one cares much about, is more or less present in all projects drawn with IdeCAD Static until now. The word to say in such cases is "Shit Happens !"
Hello friends, Another example of the bug in the finite element procedure[/b] that I found in IdeCAD Static and is still not fixed with the 7.022 update[/b] is "final version..help !!" by the user named "new". sent with the title. I do not understand why this error in the mesh algorithm, which occurs at the intersections of shell elements of different heights, has not been fixed by the engineers who programmed ideCAD Static, although I have mentioned it before. If the project in question is examined with the 3D frame option; - It is seen that the finite element mesh is formed incorrectly by the program on the walls of different heights in the basement, - And accordingly (especially for the x-direction), the displacements, internal forces and even the reinforcements are calculated incorrectly (0 cm2 for P02). Since the structure in the project in question is small, this may not be an obvious problem in the code of the program, but I can add as an example many large structures that this problem affects, down to the internal forces and the amount of reinforcement in the walls and foundations.
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Can you add the project?"Godfrey":2qfiqhmw" said:
In the shell elements I mentioned in my above articles bad meshing condition and modeling with semi-rigid diaphragm are both (for example) "final version..help !!" by user named "new". available in the submitted project. Since these errors are independent of users and projects and are caused by the structure of the program, they catch my eye in almost every project I do. If necessary, I can add a large number of small and large projects to the forum. I do not understand why these errors, which even affect the accuracy of the calculations, have not been mentioned or discussed until now."HakanŞahin":2kwtc6xk" said:
HakanŞahin
Administrator
"Godfrey":2421bkqp" said:
"Godfrey":2421bkqp" said:
Hello Mr. Kerem, Examining the mathematical model in 3D is one of the control tools of the program and should be done in every project. For model control after data entry in ideCAD Static 7:"Godfrey":2421bkqp" said:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
In semi-rigid diaphragm solution; for the two panels to work together in case they are at different heights; The data entry rules are changing the finite element width to compensate for the height difference in the panels in question, and tooth balancing in rib and cassette systems so that no teeth can come into the column. If the data entry cannot be arranged according to these issues, a fully rigid diaphragm solution is within the program possibilities. The mentioned issues are recorded in our work list. Thank you for your notifications.Levent Özpak
New Member
The above-mentioned situation is a situation that occurs when a solution is made according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option. There is no problem with the analysis model for your project."new":hm0557fr" said:
- Status