Analysis in the Former Regulation

D

damlaozgur

New Member
Hello, a renovation was requested for our ongoing project, as the on-site application and the project do not match. It is not a change that will affect the integrity of the building, but when I analyze the old regulation, there is a reinforcement change in all the columns, it changes between +6 and +10 at least. Has anyone encountered such a problem before? Could it be a version error? If you have any suggestions, I would be very grateful if you could help. Thanks in advance
 
"damlaozgur":ov0alohg" said:
Hello, a renovation was requested for our ongoing project, since the on-site application and the project do not match. It is not a change that will affect the integrity of the building much, but when I analyze the old regulation, there is a reinforcement change in all columns, at least It varies between +6 and +10. Has anyone encountered such a problem before? Could it be a version error? If you have a suggestion, I would be very grateful if you could help. Thank you in advance
Click to expand...
Hello, So that we can examine the changes in the analysis results and say whether the changes are in line with the expectations. You need to add both IdeCAD project files (it is important to add the data in that version, whichever version you solved your project in before) -However, improvements are made in the analysis model with new possibilities in the current versions of the program. Changes in the analysis results may also be caused by these updates. Note : Due to the regulations made for column transverse reinforcement spacing according to TBDY 2018 in Ver 10, the confinement zone conditions are not automatically controlled for TBDY 2007 (Automatic control is done only according to TBDY 2018). You can use my version 8.62 for solution according to TBDY 2007. Good work
 
Hello again, The project data of the 10 version of the projects you added and the building weights and earthquake loads between the two projects are not the same. The same results cannot be expected in these two projects, where the structural weight and lateral loads on the 3rd floor are quite different. In addition, there are data entry and modeling errors in the project. - It would be appropriate to model the beam between the P02-S06 columns in the basement floor as a single piece. -There are beams with positive elevation on the basement floor. The middle axis of the beam heights are not compatible with the column curtains. For this reason, the columns and walls to which these beams are connected should be given an upper level. (For example, S9-10, P01-P2...) Vertical continuity should be ensured by raising the same column and curtain walls on an upper floor. - + 88 cm in the basement floor. I suggest checking the "create rigid diaphragm" option from the tiling properties of D04- and D07 slabs with positive elevation. - From the file record history, it seems that your project has been resolved in Ver 8.504. Project results need to be compared after modeling in Ver 8.504 without data entry errors. Also, as I mentioned in my previous message, the updates made since Ver 8.504 (Ver 8.62, and Ver 10.XX updates) may cause some difference in the analysis results. Good work
 
Thank you for your valuable suggestions and comments. It's best to take it into consideration and work on it again. Thanks again for your time.
 
hello, a performance analysis was requested for a project drawn in 2014, should we do this analysis according to the new regulation?
 
Hello
"seref":1rmpqmj8" said:
hello, a performance analysis was requested for a project drawn in 2014, will we do this analysis according to the new regulation, can we see it according to the old regulation because the project drawn in the previous regulation does not provide analysis in the new regulation
Click to expand...
According to the current TBDY2018 Unver ÖZCAN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top