2018 TDBY Bidirectional gear flooring

R

rcp52

New Member
Hello friends, in the article 4.3.4.3 of the earthquake regulation, it is mentioned about systems consisting of "reinforced concrete with single direction toothed slab with infill (hollow hole) or unfilled", and the project friends who can not exceed the DTS1 DTS 2 limit, make the opportunity to make the building height from the high ductile part and without curtains by laying bidirectional gears. Does the regulation mention unidirectional slabs, are bidirectional slabs within these criteria? Waiting for your comments.
 
Hello Emrah. On what basis do you base that we should treat bidirectional threaded floors as plaques? In accordance with the general principles given in article 11.5, Section 11.3 in TS500, geared floors running in two directions can also be arranged. It says . thanks
 
Hello, TS500 defines the concrete design rules of flooring. In TBDY 2018, special provisions were introduced for non-beamed slabs and one-way ribbed floors, and restrictions and precautions were introduced in the design. There is no definition for double-sided ribbed floors. Therefore, it is no different from the beam plate. Personally, the probability of frame behavior could be increased by introducing a rule that restricts beam height based on span. Considering the 35 cm beam height in double-sided ribbed floors, I think that it will not show as much frame behavior as a beamed plate at 7-8 m span. But as a result, there is no such definition in the regulation.
 
Guys, I think there is no clear information on this subject. Even if the ribs are bidirectional, the beams will still be horizontal. Ultimately, this will have an impact on frame behavior and rigidity. Even though it is not specified in the regulation, I believe that double-sided ribbed upholstered systems should be evaluated as one-way systems. A value with a high rate of 0.75 is that different.
 
Guys, I think there is no clear information on this subject. Even if the ribs are bidirectional, the beams will still be horizontal. Ultimately, this will have an impact on frame behavior and rigidity. Even though it is not specified in the regulation, I believe that double-sided ribbed upholstered systems should be evaluated as one-way systems. A value with a high rate of 0.75 is that different .... I think there will be changes in this part in the revisions to be made in the regulation.
Click to expand...
I also agree with you. I think that in such systems, the column-beam regions will not behave sufficiently ductile. I haven't tried this app yet. I don't even think about trying. I have never tried to solve the buildings I have built with less curtains. I either gave up the hollow floor system or I designed multi-curtain systems. It's been a long time with friends saying this, we didn't do it before, why do we put so many curtains now. In the past, it was recommended to have a lot of curtains in hollow floor and cassette floors, and even in areas with more than 9-10 floors and high acceleration, hollow blocks should not be preferred. I don't mean anything for single-storey or two-storey buildings. My wish is that this should be resolved in the regulation as soon as possible. Otherwise, there will be many dilemmas in this regard. In other words, we are designing a system, on the other hand, there are those who do not put these curtains on, the questions why are you doing like this :) will not end... We would like to know the experiences and opinions of your valuable friends in the forum. Best regards...
 
The subject is Prof. Dr. I talked to my teacher Zekai Celep. He sent the following message, I am publishing it exactly.
Ismail Bey As you know, the application of hollow floor floors in our country is not suitable due to the thin plate thickness and the irregularity of the teeth. There are also disadvantages in the fact that these floors carry loads in one direction and especially to the curtains. For this reason, we know that it is limited in the regulation. Now, in some applications, the same negativities are repeated and hollow block (gear tiling) is applied in two directions. It seems to me more important to prevent this negativity. I wish you and your family health and happiness. Happy Ramadan... Zekai Celep
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Ismail, I read the message but could not interpret it. He means that two-way hollow (threaded) flooring should be perceived as one-way gear flooring.
 
"saridurmus":23jj368f" said:
Ismail Bey, I read the message but I couldn't interpret it. He wants to say that two-way hollow (threaded) flooring should be perceived as one-way gear flooring.
Click to expand...
Says Zekai Hoca[/ b]
Now, in some applications, the same negativities are repeated and hollow block (threaded floor) is applied in two directions. It seems to me more important to prevent this negativity.
Click to expand...
Hodja says that there are some disadvantages in the application of double-sided hollow block (cassette) flooring You may be saying that prevention is important.
 
Zekai Hodja says that the conditions in Ts500 must be fulfilled when laying cassettes, so the distance between the teeth should be below 70 cm. He also says that cassette slabs should be made in reusable molds and filling blocks should not be used.
 
HELLO, EASY TO EVERYONE; BETWEEN I DEFINE CASSETTE FLOORING FROM THE FLOOR MENU IN THE PROGRAM AND I DEFINE IT AS NORMAL SUB-BEAM; IS IT NORMAL TO HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF REINFORCEMENT AND DIFFERENCE IN FLOORING? OR AM I DOING IT WRONG IN THE MODELING AND THE REINFORCEMENT CONDITIONS WILL NOT CHANGE, BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROVIDE NORMAL BEAM CONDITIONS, NOT RIBBED FLOOR CONDITIONS, IN TEETH SPACES EXCEEDING 70 CM?
 
the two systems give the same results in terms of analysis results. However, in the system on the right, the plate part is constructed constructively in terms of bending. The difference here is in terms of deflection. Enter as a separate system when designing cassette flooring under the 2018 regulation. And definitely solve with semi-rigid diaphragm modeling. The calculation made in this way is suitable in both systems, except for the tiles, and gives the same result. However, the 2018 regulation also brought a lot of control for flooring. In order for these controls to be carried out properly with ideCAD, the system on the left (separate beams and interlayers) must be recognized separately, and its compliance with TS500 cassette laying rules must be checked. In the system on the left, minimum dimension checks and reinforcement checks are applied to the cassette beams. In the image below, the F11 and F22 components of the in-plane stresses formed in the floor particles of the system on your left can be seen. The Regulation requests the implementation of the rules written in Section 7.11. These checks should be made and demonstrated to be provided.
 
Hello Mr. Ismail; Thank you for your answer. Then I am faced with the following question; 1) I can use the convert to cassette option under the tile menu for slabs with tooth pitch less than 70 cm. 2) Or do I have to define them separately for all of them? I would appreciate it if you could clarify this point. Thanks. Good work.........
 
You can do it both ways, if the tooth spacing in TS500 meets the requirement. However, in the system on the right, since the slab is entered in one piece, in-plane regression control, if you experience negativity due to tensile stress, you will have difficulty in removing the reinforcement locally. The issue I have emphasized here is in terms of Earthquake Code 7.11 requirements. Now, as of v10.19, which we plan to publish in the coming days, the control of the forces transferred from the floors to the curtains will also come. Especially in some cases, it may be necessary to throw additional reinforcements to meet this requirement.
 
In terms of Earthquake Code 7.11 conditions, it seems healthier to define it as a separate beam on the left and to meet this condition. Yes, in other programs, there was a lot of trouble with that subject, as you said, we have to solve it with additional equipment.
 
I understand that it is necessary to do so, correct me if I misunderstood, but I understand that it is more correct to model it that way in terms of the program. Also, Is Ismail Bey, is it necessary to discard all the short ones and divide the others? In the image below, it is modeled as a segmented beam on the left, and as a whole beam on the right.
 
I understand that it is necessary to do so, correct me if I misunderstood, but I understand that it is more correct to model it that way from a programmatic point of view.
Click to expand...
There is no difference in terms of main beams, columns and a whole structure in terms of two systems. Constructive and reinforcement conditions are different for slabs and cassette beams. In addition, there is no difference in terms of Regulation 7.11 requirements. However, if you enter as the system on the right in your systems, your job of placing local reinforcement on the floor in terms of in-plane stresses becomes very difficult.
Also, İsmail Bey, should the one with the short trusses be discarded and the others divided? Modeled as a segmented beam on the left in the picture below
Click to expand...
Enter the beams as a whole in both directions without splitting them But equip as top and bottom reinforcement without pleats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top