Approval of "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the regulation requirement"

[qwerty]

Whether it's a 5-storey or 15-storey building and cantilever beams with large spans and not less than 2 meters, Columns 25x30, Beams 25x30, no shears in the structure, whether the foundation is in the smallest sections... And consider that the structure really saves when the program is calculated with these sections. and when this project is submitted to the administration for approval, can the Administration reject this project? How would you approach such a project professionally and do you have any professional principles apart from the regulation? Which values above the regulation do you work with in the IDE?

 

[Levent Özpak]

Re: MINIMUM SECTION PROJECTS THAT MEET THE REGULATION REQUIREMENT If you add a sample project to it, both ideYAPI Technical Service and forum participants can submit their opinions.

 

[qwerty]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the requirements of the regulation" o The general approach of İdecad users on the subject is very important. No matter which academic author's book you read, they usually talk about values and criteria above regulation. They say that the regulation consists of both limiting a mediocre civil engineer in terms of legislation and directing them in project construction. The point I don't understand is: Why is a project that meets the minimum sections in the regulation evaluated with extra criteria? If these sections were troubled, they could not exceed the regulation values anyway. There are a number of recommendations, for example: Start the minimum thickness of the raft foundation at 50cm (up to 5 floors), add 10cm for each subsequent layer. Now let my construction be 10 floors, 50cm+5*10cm=100cm thick raft. It also saves when I solve it with 70 cm raft thickness. The user is in a dilemma, which is correct/more accurate/more accurate? 70 cm? 100 cm? The Japanese propose to calculate the project by taking the building behavior coefficient with alternative values (eg R=7, R=6). If these recommendations are correct, why are they not included in the regulations? There is a 565 cm 25x30 or 30x30 beam (residential structure), and it saves. Now, am I going to find this beam, which has saved, visually small in size and go for an arbitrary increase? Mr. İde, apart from you, in some programs in the market, long-term deflection calculations, wide beam, narrow column combinations, etc. there are problems and the control mechanism of the program does not detect it, but you can see it in the reports. Or analysis systems are not equivalent to the user's geometric design, and the reinforced concrete calculation values after the analysis are appropriate in the program and in the reports, but it may not be appropriate to reflect them on the drawing. Especially in shell element (finite element creation) solutions, semi-rigid acceptance and ground interaction options of the programs, we may encounter unmatched results with package programs. This time, the developer with higher total reinforcement can say that my program is more reliable. As ide, you have made many tests and comparisons while making the program and constantly developing your program due to the market climate or as a company principle. Relying on your experience and knowledge, I would like to ask: Is it necessary to make an extra intervention in the project that saves with minimum sections?

 

[Ismail Hakki Besler]

Re: "Projects with minimum cross-sections that meet the requirements of the regulation" o

I want to ask, relying on your experience and knowledge: Is it necessary to make an extra intervention in the project that saves with minimum cross-sections?[ /quote] May be required.

 

[qwerty]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the requirements of the regulation" o Your valuable opinions are important to us if my question will not exceed the purpose of use of the form, or if it will not cause you any extra trouble. In what ways is intervention necessary?

 

[Ismail Hakki Besler]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the requirements of the regulation" o

Your valuable opinions are important to us if my question will not exceed the purpose of use of the form, or if it will not give you any extra trouble. Is it necessary?

If we go through a concrete example to answer your question, I can give you a concrete suggestion.

 

[NYILMAZ]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meets the regulation requirement" o

There are some suggestions, for example: Start the minimum thickness of the raft foundation from 50cm (up to 5 floors), each subsequent Add 10cm for the floor. Now let my construction be 10 floors, 50cm+5*10cm=100cm thick raft. Solving it with 70 cm raft thickness also saves. The user is left in a dilemma, which one is correct/more accurate/more accurate? 70 cm or 100 cm

Here, the knowledgeable user will not be in a dilemma. He knows where it comes from. For example, starting from what you wrote above, the foundations of all buildings with the same number of floors must also be the same. In this case, you can limit it to the program. Do you think it should impose a limitation in such a case? ? This means that programs should interfere with incorrect designs, then engineering is removed. We are all uncomfortable with "cow sausage", but then too, with authorization-based returns by people who have authority but do not know about many issues. we meet. Of course, the opposite can also happen. There may be no basis to refute the "program solves" thesis of the uninformed. The best thing here is not to give the newly graduated engineer friends the right to do projects right away. As with the attorney system, trainee engineering may be appropriate. Or, it may be necessary to take part in the project in a certain number or square meters. Then, the exploitation of the labor of such friends of ours arises, and the subject goes on and on. N. YILMAZ .

 

[saridurmus]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the regulation requirement" o I agree with what Nedim Bey said. I would also like to mention about beam columns. Yes, the regulation gives you an option in two dimensions, such as 30*30, but it does not give the third dimension, you determine it according to your project. Later, when your project is created, when you will analyze, the regulations come into play and the horizontal or vertical elements such as transport, shear, torsion and deflection, etc. He tells you to provide the conditions. When you try to provide them, the dimensions you say are insufficient and you have to enlarge them. This is why here and other friends tell you to increase the size of the elements at various moments.

 

[qwerty]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the regulation requirement" o Dear friends, I think it would be better if we tried to help each other about technical issues. Asking questions (even the most ignorant questions to you) means striving to learn. Even the simplest question asked (the most ignorant question) allows us to determine that the things we think we know are wrong, incomplete, or completely right. Is such a question asked? What an ignorant engineer, evident from the question he asked! Are we going to write an answer to this at once! Shame on you for asking me to write an answer to this! Such an engineer! If we stay away from comments that will cause such misunderstandings (you may not want to do this, but) and write more constructive, more informed comments, we will have a chance to communicate more warmly with each other. I am a civil engineer, according to some I am the most ignorant, according to others I am just an engineer. But I'm an engineer trying to learn. May Allah keep us all away from arrogance.

 

[NYILMAZ]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the regulation requirement" o Dear qwerty, I sense a reproach from your last post. I apologize in advance if this site is related to the sentences I used. I didn't make a sentence about your person or I didn't want to say anything to accuse you. If they are perceived as such, consider them as over-exploited sentences. I tried to answer your question by photographing the situation in the market in general. Best regards... N. YILMAZ

 

[qwerty]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the requirements of the regulation" o

If my question does not exceed the intended use of the form, I will also give you an extra Your valuable feedback is important to us. In which aspects is it necessary to intervene?

If we go through a concrete example to answer your question, I can give you a concrete suggestion. I started as 30x30) but while trying to fix the shortcomings, the project finally reached this point. I would be glad if you check it out.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[HakanŞahin]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the requirements of the regulation" o The concrete cover value of 2.5 cm is given in the beam parameters of the project you added. Concrete cover and net concrete cover definitions in TS500: Net Concrete Cover values are given in TS 500 Table 9.3: Therefore, in Beam Parameters, concrete cover thickness, used longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups You should also consider its diameter. Instead of 2.5 cm, it would be appropriate to give 4.5 cm.

 

[qwerty]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the requirements of the regulation" o Thank you Mr. Hakan, I am aware that I missed some points (for example, there is a column error in the basement floor in the geometry check). In this study, if we only look at the effect of cross-section sizes, I can correct the project and send it again if it causes trouble in terms of correct interpretation.

Relying on your experience and knowledge, I would like to ask you: Is it necessary to make an extra intervention in the project that saves with minimum sections?

It may be necessary.

 

[HakanŞahin]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the requirements of the regulation" o If you take the concrete cover of 4.5 cm for the beams, it seems that there are elements that do not meet the TDY 2007 article 3.4.3b on some floors.

 

[qwerty]

Re: "Projects with a minimum cross section that meet the regulation requirement" o Mr. Hakan, the corrected version is attached.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.