Article 4.3.4.6 Control * IMPORTANT EXPLANATION *

Yes, there is a calculation error that I made. (It's not very important, that's not what was meant) So, with fictive inverted triangle loading, the same result can be achieved with the response spectrum method, without making a structure-independent solution? Or is it a coincidence? I leave it to you to check the analysis and results (M12= 25.35 Nv=16.37) under fictitious load. Good work... Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk
 
"Mirza":i2maghyu" said:
In other words, it is possible to achieve the same result with the response spectrum method without making a structure-independent solution with fictitious inverted triangle loading? Or is it a coincidence? We want to analyze the results and check the results (M12= 25.35 Nv=16.37) under the fictitious load. ) I leave it to you.
Click to expand...
If you send your project, we will check it. If the bond beam curtain you checked in the project you entered is the same as the entered project when you isolate it, the Nv and M values for the triangle loading and response results of the two system solutions are compatible, and as a result, the bond degree coefficient Since I can't see your project, I'm showing you the results of the analysis under fictitious load, based on the numerical values of the project, whose data I have put here (Fictive upload omega.ide10). The attached project is c=8 m and only two curtains and omega condition between them. There is a tie beam that does not provide omega 0.233 calculated by the program omega 0.233 found with fictive loading Program file: Program automatically For the fictitious loading it makes, a loading status called fictitious load is also entered in the program and the loading result is found by entering the fictitious load in the form of an inverted triangle from top to bottom, respectively 1.02 tf 0.85 tf 0.71 tf 0.57 tf 0.43 tf 0.28 tf 0.14 tf c=8 m t Nv=3.522 M1=46.123 tfm M2=46.062 tfm Omega = cx Nv / ( M1 + M2 + cx Nv) Omega = 0.233 Values found as a result of response spectrum calculation: c=8 m Nv =6.015 tf M1=79.889 tfm M2=79.783 tfm Omega= 0.232
 
Hello, The purpose of the discussion on the subject discussed in detail above was: to better understand the tipping moment control. It is useful to know that the results of the checks I made and the "fictitious load comparative analyzes" shared by İsmail Bey in his last message were the same. The reason for the confusion is; The values printed on the loyalty report were "fictitious upload" results. I was curious and questioned the values in this report, since I had not read any explanation about the printing of the Nv, M1 M2 values as different values here, and I did not pay attention to the approach in the Application Examples Handbook. The fact that the authors of the regulation did not write the "fictitious load model" while calculating the degree of commitment stands as a shortcoming of the regulation. Those who wrote the same regulation; In the application examples, I leave it to my colleagues to calculate the degree of commitment with an unwritten method. As a result, I have a better understanding of what the program is doing in the background for myself. Ismail Bey, thank you for the explanations. good work, best regards...
 
"Mirza":21lasyqi" said:
The fact that the authors of the regulation did not write the "fictitious load model" while calculating the degree of adherence stands as a shortcoming of the regulation. I leave it to the discretion of my colleagues to calculate the degree of adherence by an unwritten method in the application examples of the authors of the same regulation. [ /quote] Dear Mirza, you can get the result correctly only by isolating the tie beam shear from the structure and dissolving it with the fictitious load. This is the only way to correctly calculate the degree of attachment described in the regulation.
"yusuf15hira17":21lasyqi" said:
hello, I added the project data as a plugin
Click to expand...
I couldn't find your project, where did you add it as a plugin?
Click to expand...
 
We have introduced an option in the upcoming version 10.08; Added the option to consider beam shear force contributions, ie shear normal force (Nv) contributions. Earthquake regulations allow these contributions to be taken into account only in tie beams that meet the 1/3 condition. Checking this option can be done within the user's knowledge. In this project, if this option is checked, it satisfies the 0.75 condition in the Y direction very easily. But it stays around 0.65 in the X direction.
 
Thank you, Mr. Ismail, then I think we'll be a little more comfortable than you think. I'm already trying not to make a project without making a design without slab slabs or hollow slabs or tie beams. this will work great for me. but as far as i understand, that button will not be enough anyway. We don't have any problems for slab floors anyway, the regulation is quite flexible in that regard. but we do our best to avoid having to get answers to our customers with the phrase "other programs" as much as possible, but we become a little mad. What can be done and what way can be followed in this regard, what would your suggestions be, I am aware that you, as the idecad family, have done a near-perfect job on this matter, but considering the market conditions, the people we deal with and your competitors, this transition process has started to be very painful. Can we get information from the regulation authorities that it is so strict, or can we not make 6-7 curtains in small-scale systems to meet this condition with 2-3 columns with small stretches that can be made? Good work
 
In version 10.08, we have introduced an option on the condition that you knowingly and at your own discretion. We think that it will meet this need in hollow block systems as well. The same problem arose in the old 1996 regulation. And this article was first introduced in the regulation in 1998. In the 2008 regulation, shear force control (Alfa s) was introduced instead of overturning moment. At that time, ideCAD did as the regulation ordered, unfortunately taking into account the reaction of its users, as written in the regulation. Regulations are not texts in which ordinary rules are written. You can't guess that this is my comment. The 2018 Regulations never allow you to choose this option as it is written, and we do not recommend that you choose it.
 
Hello, I do not follow the forum constantly, even though I read the regulation over and over, I constantly contradict myself, so I wanted to get help from you. For a dts:3 building with a building height of 12 meters, we find bys as 7. our building is hollow. My first question is: Can I choose a mixed ductile option from A2 in table 4.1, since bys 7 is no matter whether I meet the mdev condition or not. I think I should not be able to choose one here, since the smallest bys 6 is bys 7, but a friend of mine chose one here and got its license. secondly: no matter what I do, even though I put a curtain wall so that it will not affect the architecture, I could not meet the mdev requirement. Since bys in the structure is 7, I can only select A31 from table 4.1. I think this is correct. In A31, the situation in which all the effects of earthquakes are conveyed with frames is described, in this case, how would it be beneficial for me to make curtains. because the municipality wants curtains around the elevator. In this case, because the D is 2.5, too much shear force occurs in the only one of this U fret, and 12 or even 14 stirrups are required. I wonder if I am doing something wrong. 3: While using ide v7, I was analyzing by showing the basement curtains, but the mdev condition was met in v10. I wonder if there is a change compared to v7. Finally, what exactly do values like modal e1 e2 e3 in modal analysis mean? Thank you in advance for your help.
 
Hello, You have mixed the concepts. The BYS value gets smaller as the building height increases. In other words, the BYS value of the tallest building is 1. As a result, a building with BYS=7 has a lower storey than a building with BYS=6. As the height of the building increases (as the BYS value gets smaller), the requirements of the regulation become heavier. If we understood that, let's move on to your question. 1- You can solve buildings with one-way ribbed floors according to A23 or A24. Apart from that, A21 and A22 are out of scope. 2- If BYS=7, A23 and A24 can be used. 3- Since the curtains marked as basement curtain are not the main carrier curtain of the building, they are not included in the Mdev calculation. You can check which curtains are taken into account by looking at the Mdev account at the end of the general earthquake report.
 
I am aware that the height of the building is inversely proportional to the bys value. For example, in a building where I can use the A14, I can also use the A21 or the A31. Of course, this would not be an economical solution. but here is the situation in my previous question. my build is bys=7 so A23 and A24 cannot be used automatically because I reward the build. Even if I use the remaining A23 or A24, we automatically have to use A31 since the mdev condition is not met. My curiosity starts here. If all the effects of earthquakes are covered by frames, what good will it be for me to put a curtain? because in the u elevator curtains that are grouped together, very thick stirrups appear due to the fact that D is taken as 2.5.
 
"civilization":2mo8iqfx" said:
is a building where I can use A14 as an example, I can also use A21 or A31, of course this is not an economical solution.
Click to expand...
You cannot use A31. Pay attention to the definitions. [quote ="civilization":2mo8iqfx"]build bys=7 so A23 and A24 cannot be used automatically because I reward the build. [/quote] I don't know what causes this thought, but if you have a hollow building and BYS=>6, you will analyze and design according to A23 or A24.
"civilization":2mo8iqfx" said:
however, even if I use A23 or A24, we automatically have to use A31 because the mdev requirement is not met.
Click to expand...
There are two opinions here. Those who think you wrote it like. Related link:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
You are right on the first point, I misunderstood the bys issue. I apologize for bothering you about this. My reason for thinking on the second issue is also enlightened by your first answer. I agree with you on the last case. In the program regulation tool, a23 or a24 will be selected, then we will come to the analysis settings and replace the rvd with the ones in a31. thank you again.
 
"Ismail Hakki Besler":1l7lfi5s" said:
With the regulation article 4.3.4.6, it was stipulated that the sum of the overturning moments resulting from earthquake loads on the shear walls shall not be less than 75% of the total overturning moment occurring at the base due to earthquake loads for the whole building. The tipping moment calculated for the whole structure can be calculated as equivalent or dynamically.There may be a difference of 10% between the two calculations.But the most important thing here is the contribution of the walls to the total tipping moment of the structure, especially in low-rise and flat structures, with the effect of the normal force they take as they move away from the building centre. When the calculation is made in this way, it becomes almost impossible to meet the 0.75 condition due to the axial forces of the distal walls. In order to meet this condition, it is necessary to take the shear force contribution of the beams connected to this curtain from the rigid direction. However, the regulation does not say that you can do this. It is necessary to add the Moments created by these normal forces (shear forces of the beams stuck in the wall) to the shear overturning moments. This is how ideCAD calculates the overturning moment of the tie-beam wall, which meets the degree of attachment requirement for shear walls. The regulation already calculates the overturning moment of the curtains with tie beams. However, it alone takes care of the overturning moment that occurs at the base of the walls in the walls where the beams that are not in the nature of tie beams are stuck. In Regulation 4.3.4.8 Mdev shall be calculated according to 4.5.3.7(d) or 4.5.3.8(c) for shear walls, and 4.5.4.3 for sheaths with tie beams (with spaces). If the total overturning moment M0 resulting from earthquake loads for the whole building is 4.7, 4.8.2 or 4.8.3, it will be obtained according to 4.7, 4.8.2 or 4.8.3. As such, ideCAD calculates correctly as the earthquake regulations say. In the attached project, almost all of which are curtain walls, the rollover control remains at 0.71 in the X direction. The reason is the normal forces of the curtains on the side to tip over. Earthquake regulations are incomplete as such and do not cover these situations. This control can be used as it is for curtains created close to the center in your projects. However, for these and similar projects, an additional condition may be required, as in the old 1997 regulation. In the following project, 25x25 was chosen so that the columns do not contribute to the overturning of the system. When reasonable sizes are entered, the ratio will be even smaller. When 50x50 columns are entered, Mdev/m0 decreases to 0.55.
Click to expand...
In the old regulation, I used to put a curtain when I saw the opportunity to make it easier both in terms of the stability of the project and in terms of saving in the account. But as far as I understand, if 75% is not met even in the system consisting of simple 25 x 25 2 columns and 4 curtains (I don't understand how it is not met), it becomes impossible to put curtains except around the elevator and stairs in our 3 4 flats project. Am I right Mr. Ismail?
 
In the new update that will be released, when you mark the relevant option in the program in order to calculate as the regulation does not say, it will meet the 75% requirement. However, this process will not comply with the current 2018 regulation. The regulation contains special rules not to build hollow blocks, and it says not to design a hollow block structure, even if it is not explicitly. To understand how the 75% requirement you mentioned is not met, I suggest you read my message that you quoted. Even if you don't read all of it, it is enough to read the section I gave below; In order to meet this condition, it is necessary to take the shear force contribution of the beams connected to this wall from the rigid direction. But the regulation does not say that you can do so. Take this contribution only and only in high beams that meet the 1/3 commitment condition We check the 75% condition by showing that the beams meeting the 1/3 condition meet this condition and taking this contribution. When you mark the option I mentioned, the 75% condition will be checked regardless of whether it meets the 1/3 condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top