Account mismatch between ide 5.5 .1 and 6.5

P

profesyonel

New Member
First of all, greetings to everyone. I have 2 problems. In the first one, in 5.5 30/60 columns, I put 4 q14 reinforcements on the short side, 2 corners and 2 sides, in total 12q14 complete, I did not make the reinforcement design appropriately. Even though I edited the column parameter, I couldn't solve it. The problem is fixed in q16 steel. Secondly, every project that I couldn't recover in 5.5 is recovered in 6.5 without any problems, except for the deflection control thing. When I open the project I drew in 5.5 in 6.5, analyze and get a report, I see that every force from normal force to shear forces is lower and my project is problem-free. Even if I draw in 5.5 and get a b error in almost all of my columns, I don't have a problem in 6.5. How can I use 5.5.11 in the most compatible way now? I would like to thank everyone with my respect..
 
By explaining with examples on the basis of elements; If you add your project to the message, a detailed review of your question can be made. Note: You need to include the version of the project saved in 5.511.
 
Hello,
"professional":3q7e9dv8" said:
2. Every project that I couldn't save in 5.5 is recovered without any problems at 6.5, except the deflection control thing. When I open the project I drew in 5.5 in 6.5, analyze and get a report, the strength of each force is lower than normal force. I see that it works and my project is problem-free. Even though I draw in 5.5 and get a b error in almost all of my columns, I don't have a problem in 6.5. Now how can I use 5.5.11 in the most harmonious way, I would like to thank everyone..
Click to expand...
Your project analysis results are in versions 5.551 - 6.54 The forces are very close. Look at the values in the reinforcement area. For example, for normal strength, you should look at Tz values at 5 and Ni values at 6. As for the reason why the number of columns with B problem is higher in 5: In version 5, the beam sub-rebars are 1/ It is extended up to 4. Therefore, the existing reinforcement is more in the column beam shear safety control, which increases the value of Ve. On the other hand, the lower flat reinforcements are cut on the face of the adjacent support. Therefore, it does not participate in the existing equipment. (This is one of the features of version 6) For example: S2 column on the SW axis of the ground floor has a B error. Examine the beam sub-reinforcements passing through the S2 column in the drawing. Solution 1: You can switch to version 6, hence version 7. Solution 2: In beams on the G axis; If you make the bottom reinforcement values of the 1st beam and the 2nd beam the same, you will reduce the "existing reinforcement" value in the support. K32, located between S1-S2, has 3fi14 sub-reinforcements. K32, located between S2-S3, has 2fi14 sub reinforcement. In B control, the total is 5fi14. If you make 2fi14 to 3fi14 in K32 located between S2-S3, a total of 3fi14 will be taken and B will save.
"professional":3q7e9dv8" said:
. I have 2 problems 1. I put 4 q14 reinforcements in 30/60 columns in 5.5, on the short side, on 2 corners, on 2 sides, in total, I did not design the reinforcement properly in 12q14 complete, I did not make the rust share etc. Even though I edited the column parameter, I couldn't solve it. The problem is fixed in q16 steel.
Click to expand...
I couldn't understand your question. In 30/60 columns, the reinforcements are selected as 4 corners and 8 edges. There is no problem in this either.
 
I'm thinking of updating it as soon as possible, but it's on hold for financial reasons. The information you provided helped me a lot, thanks
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
I want to make the number of vertical reinforcements 3, which is 4 in total on the short side and short side corners of the 30*60 column. . . . - . . - . . - . . . . so I want it to throw a total of 12q14 vertical reinforcement like this, I hope I could express the problem more clearly this time. Best regards
 
Reinforcement placement in the column is done in the form of equal distribution of reinforcement to the edges by controlling the 25fietriye condition. The layout of the program is in accordance with the regulations. In the program, we do not have the possibility to slide the reinforcement bar in the order you want from edge to edge. Note: In 5 versions, the reinforcement is selected as in the picture... but in the 6 - 7 versions, the reinforcement is automatically placed in the order you want. This is one of the 5 - 6 version differences. Good work...
 
Why do you need such an arrangement? In the major direction, the column receives more moment (where its inertia is high), more stress occurs on the short sides, so the need for reinforcement on these sides increases. After the program has placed the reinforcement according to this need, it is not appropriate to change their positions. G.KÖSE
 
I read the last message you gave on the subject yesterday, but I could not find the opportunity to write a reply. Hakan, I owe my thanks. @insmuh_gk the only reason why those reinforcements on the short side are given that way is the 25qetriye condition, that is, it has nothing to do with any load, but I have never seen such a column, with all due respect.. my questions have been answered, the topic can be locked.
 
Professional, just because you don't see a column design with such a reinforcement doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The increase in reinforcement in the direction of HIGH MOMENT OF INTERACTION on the short side of the column increases the column moment capacity, bearing capacity, and increases the rigidity of the building in that direction as it contributes to the rigidity. (What's the function of the head reinforcement on the curtains, the reinforcement on the short side of the column is.) Best regards. G.KÖSE
 
I partially agree with what you said, but increasing the reinforcement does not increase the rigidity in that direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top