beamless flooring

T

tevekkül

New Member
A project that saves with ide 5 and 20 cm flooring thickness can only save with ide 6 with 32 cm... is it normal to have such a difference? Or did I make a mistake in modelling? Do I have a problem with reinforced concrete calculation axles?
 
Hello, according to TS500, thickness controls are one of the new possibilities added in 6 versions... The program performs minimum thickness control according to the calculation openings of the floors in version 6, so it recommends 32 cm. 5, there was no such control and therefore no recommendation... You also need to consider the earthquake load transfer in the horizontal direction in multi-storey beamless floors. You can meet this requirement by connecting each column with hidden beams or you can use link elements. This will be your 1st model and you will make TDY section 2 controls according to this model. In model 2, you define no beams and analyze the shell for vertical loads. In addition, you can combine the reinforcements you calculated in the hidden beams in the 1st model and the other reinforcements you found as a result of vertical loading in the drawings. I hope I could help. Good luck with...
 
first of all, thank you for your attention... I think the program performs the ts500 thickness control according to the distance that the reinforced concrete calculation axis passes. I changed the location of the calculation axles, less thickness ide 6 did not warn of section insufficiency. And how does the ts500 accept this type of flooring in the thickness control? There are beams in this system, but if the system without beams, TS500 accepts this floor as a double-sided system with beams, this thickness control will not be correct. If it is accepted without beams, this time there are cantilever zones in the project. so I think we have to do the thickness control of the project ourselves in such systems. but I also think that we need to pass the calculation axes through large areas for the reinforcement solution. In this case, if I solve this project with ide 6, I will not get an error-free report that will give an insufficient thickness warning. If we throw hidden beams for earthquake load transfer in the horizontal direction, these beams will be beams that do not comply with the beam specifications. Also, when we model these beams in ide, they will make these checks and will not provide a cross section, I think. How can we understand whether the slab rigid diaphragm is sufficient for the column end points to move together in earthquake load transfer? Even if we make hidden beams, the cross-sections of these beams will not change, only the reinforcement will be thrown more often in that area. we are already doing this in practice and drawings. You mentioned link elements, I don't fully understand it. how do we do this in app and account?
 
Hello again
, I think the program ts500 makes the thickness control according to the distance that the reinforced concrete calculation axis passes. I changed the location of the calculation axles, and ide 6 with less thickness did not warn of lack of section.
Click to expand...
Although the location of the calculation axis is important, the program tries to find the most appropriate spacing by looking at the distances between the columns. However, the algorithm will be valid with a truly beamless definition of a beamless slab. However, there are also beams in your system. In this case, a mixed evaluation will be made.
and how does ts500 accept such slabs in thickness control. There are beams in this system, but if the ts500 accepts this floor as a double-sided system with beams, this thickness control would not be correct
Click to expand...
This is the point I wanted to draw your attention to. There will be no beam definition in the beamless slab model, but a second model is required for earthquake transmission.
if it accepts beamless, this time there are cantilever zones in the project. so I think we have to do the thickness control of the project ourselves in such systems.
Click to expand...
It is necessary to accept the floor thickness controls for the system without beams. Thickness>=ln/30 for beamless slab without table, Thickness>=ln/35 for plated floor.
but I also think that we need to pass the axes of calculation through large areas for the reinforcement solution. In this case, if I solve this project with ide 6, I will not get an error-free report that will give an insufficient thickness warning. If we throw hidden beams for earthquake load transfer in the horizontal direction, these beams will be beams that do not comply with the beam specifications. Also, when we model these beams in ide, they will make these checks and will not provide a cross section, I think. ]
Click to expand...
We enter the beams we entered for the relative floor hoteling and earthquake regulation controls and so on. However, at 6, it is possible to print out the hidden beams without having the regulation checks, if necessary. As long as we are aware of the results of the model we make as an engineer. In the 2nd model, you can not have a conformity check while receiving a report. .
How do we know if the slab rigid diaphragm is sufficient for the column endpoints to move together in seismic load transfer? Even if we make hidden beams, the cross-sections of these beams will not change, only the reinforcement will be thrown more often in that area. we are already doing this in practice and drawings. You mentioned link elements, I don't fully understand it. How will we do this in practice and calculation?
Click to expand...
In link elements, I meant rigid connectors in the program, but I saw that it does not need to be defined because rigid diaphragms are already accepted at the top of the column. As I wrote, the aim is to be able to control the relative floor drift etc. section 2. The most suitable modeling for this will be by defining the hidden beams.
 
I deleted the beams completely in the program and when I laid a single beamless slab, I saw that the program detected the slab free span in the minimum slab thickness control of the beamless slab as the openings in the elevator and staircase interiors. Since this is a small opening such as 190 and 250 cm, the minimum thickness of the flooring is 250/30 = 8.3 cm. larger spans are available in this project... so it seems the program is not doing the minimum check for beamless flooring correct for this project. also, when there are beams in the project, the program does not detect it as a beamless slab and does not check for punching either... also, when I surround the basement of the project with a curtain and lay a slab inside, I cannot introduce this slab as without beams... When you define fictitious beams in the project for earthquake transmission, the slab rigidity will not change since there will be no change in the cross-section. I believe the situation will not change much with beams having the same inertia as Since the project is already working as a rigid diaphragm, I do not think that there will be a problem in sharing the horizontal loads to the nodes in proportion to their stiffness. Even if we do not enter these fictitious beams, the program still performs checks such as relative floor drifts.
 
"tavekkul":kodio47w" said:
in addition, the program takes the shear force capacity of the curtains I have defined with the panel object as 0 in curtain shear force control...
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Click to expand...
Panels split by beam rather than panels have an issue with printing zeros in the alphas report Values will appear in the first updated version.For now, if you want those values to appear in the AAlfas report, you can delete the beams connected to those panels before receiving the report, and undo them after you receive the report.In addition, since there are no basement perimeter curtains in your project, you need to enter the rigid basement floor number -2 in your project. I think the -1 value was left incorrectly.
 
I modeled the project as a preliminary study. There will be no consoles in the basement anyway, and I will surround it with curtains. I'd probably give up on beamless flooring too...
 
The opening to be considered in the minimum floor thickness in non-beamed floors cannot always be defined very clearly. While some of our users take into account a gap, others may make requests such as this gap is too much, let's consider the gap between these two columns. Therefore, in the next update (v6.0100), we have introduced the opportunity for the engineer to intervene in the opening to be used in the minimum thickness control. If you are convinced that the program has made the right decision in automatic control, you can have a control done with the calculated clearance. No, if you take the initiative and say that I want to use this opening as you mentioned, you will have the chance to report it to the program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top