BEAM

G

gürkan

New Member
hello hello I have two questions; 1-In the project, I am placing another beam in the middle of a beam that is seated on two columns. If the beam I sit on remains as a single beam, the beam reinforcements are different, but; If I delete that beam and draw two separate beams again, the beam reinforcements are different. My question is; Which of these equipment is safer or which one should be? Where can I find deflection results in 2 cantilever beams and floors? And does the program give an error on cantilever beams with excessive deflection? Thanks
 
Hello. Since K105 - K106 and K116 - K117 beams are carrier beams in the attached project, you should model them as a single beam, so you have to make the names the same. In ideCAD Static 6 version, when you receive beam reports, you can examine beam deflections from Deflection and Crack controls. In the slab reports, you can examine the deflections in the Slab Deflection Controls section. If the deflection limit is exceeded in Beams and Slabs, it is indicated with a red X in Deflection Reports. In the reinforced concrete dialogue, (S) is written next to the name of Beam.
 
Do I need to enter the k157 beam as two separate beams? Because this beam is divided by another beam, but there is no differentiation in its reinforcement.
 
Hello If you add a project instead of the picture, it will be more understandable. The beam names cannot be understood from the picture. In general, when defining beams, if the beams are divided by columns or curtains, their names should be different. If they form stud beams, their names should be the same. When defining beams, "Divide by intersections" and "Auto-name objects divided by columns" in the Beam toolbar are active as standard. If you work this way, you should have no problems with Beam naming. One end of the 157 beam is stuck in the curtain, it has formed a stud-like connection to the other beams, So the K157 beam is divided into two, but the names must be the same. If there was a column at that node instead of a beam stud as in the picture I attached. Beam names should be K157 - K158 Good work
 
Mr. TEZEL: I would like to draw attention to something in systems like this. K116 and K117 should be a single straight beam, but K116 beam is connected to two rigid elements in x -x direction and its span is quite short. the support is connected to the rigid member, and it is divided into two in the middle, and the other part is a bar element with a large span and the other end of it is stuck in the K105 beam (an end that can rotate more than the other end and can be considered a joint according to the column). I think it would be more appropriate to run this system, wouldn't it? As you can see, K116 and K117 beams are inserted as a single K116 beam, then inserted into K157 beam from the right end and continued as K158, inserted into K116 from the left end and stuck in K105 at the other end. .Actually, the intersection of two beams requires a column, but some architectural conditions do not allow it at the moment. If both parts of the beams that are stuck to each other in the system were equal or close to equal, maybe your acceptance would be more valid. I am waiting for your comment on my proposal. Similar systems of this type are very common. Best regards.
 
No matter how you enter the system in ideCAD Static, the calculation is always the same in terms of analysis. Whether split beams have the same name or not affects the reinforcement of these beams. In terms of calculation, you will get the same result in any case. In addition, it would be more appropriate to examine the moment diagram of the system and name the system as separate beams from the points with negative or zero moment. However, again, no matter how you name the beams, the end forces of the system do not change.
 
Hello there; I agree with the explanations of Mr. Cassabotanic on the subject and wanted to add a screenshot that I think will explain the situation better. in the screenshot; 1- When we look at the moment diagrams of the K4 beam and K9-K10 beams, it will be seen that both parts of the K4 beam must have the same name, while the K9-K10 beams should have different names as in the plan image, 2- If we interpret the diagrams for the K2 and K11 beams, both beams It will be seen that the parts should not be given different names. As Mr. Cassabotanic said, naming only affects the reinforcement design in the program and does not change the analysis results. However, wrong naming may cause a wrong reinforcement placement and thus problems in practice... best regards.
 
Dear 2m, the explanations of the project and the moment diagrams of the system he added also support the acceptance and explanation I have made, and the situation that should be reminded again is that if butype systems are required to be made and the spans are excessive, I think it is useful to put a column instead of the beam intersection if it is possible. greetings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top