Can You Help With Column Beam Joint?

A

adil.ins

New Member
Actually, I have many questions, but the union is urgent. 1) Can't the project I added with dporbox be defined with a column-beam combination as in the picture? 2) Why can't we extend the beams out like a fringe in the hall macro? 3) Finally, how do we reduce the PMM rate? I have many samples belonging to the same region, even IPE 120 saved it, and IPE 140 does not save me, and my range is 80 cm. project
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
KvaxSRH.png
large image
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
In the project, the coating loads are 200kg/m2. If the coating is a sandwich panel, this value will be in the order of 10-20 kg/m2. And snow load is not defined on the coatings. Also, I think it would be better to use UPE or UPN profile instead of IPE profile on roofs. Also, reconsider your design and profile selection.
 
You are right, the load to be mounted on the solar panel and installation on the roof is a little too much. On the other hand, they compare me with previous projects and they want those sections. I have no problem playing with column and beam sections, but I need help with lovers...
 
I don't understand how it compares with other projects or do you want to save these lovers with the IPE 120?
 
my friend, if you are going to put solar panels, these loads are in the order of 10 Kg / m2 of coating and 18 ~ 25 kg / m2 of solar panels. Organize your loads accordingly, maybe it will save you.
 
Unfortunately, it didn't save that way either. Did I miss one of the settings while analyzing? It's been 5 days since Idecad steel bought, I've been messing around with it intensely, but it doesn't work when it doesn't? :( project
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Hello there; First, remove the purlins from the analysis model. The attached pictures will help. Then increase the material class. If S355 IPN 160 tension rods are defined, it is sufficient for strength, but it does not save due to deflection. If you model the tension rod, you have to make a one-step calculation by accepting the tension rods as a support for the deflection. It is currently missing in the program, but the necessary work will be done. However, the main issue you mentioned is that IPN 120 is sufficient, it does not seem possible in capacity calculation. There is a serious slope on your roof, so there is an increase in the load on your purlins due to the slope. Recovery of IPN 120 seems unlikely with this geometry and loads. Snow load, pavement unit weight and wind load applied to the pavement by the program in accordance with TS 498 must be the same in the model you mentioned. Programmatically, there is no problem with loads and staff capacities. Strong Axis: Mn= Fy*Z3 Mn=24000*135.735*10^(-6)= 3.2576 tfm Mc= Mn/1.67 = 3.2576/1.67= 1.95 tfm Weakness: Mn=Fy*Z2<= 1.6*Fy*S2 Mn= 24000*24.733*10^(-6)<= 1.6*24000*14.708*10^(-6) Mn= 0.59356<= 0.564 Mn= 0.59356 Mc= 0.59356/1.67 =0.355 The values for the material class of these values are S 235 and lovers You can see that it is compatible with the case of IPN 160. In short, as mentioned, it does not seem possible with AISC 360-10 to be sufficient for you in your structure with IPN 120 S235 material. TS 648, on the other hand, causes higher sections to be used in general compared to AISC 360-10. Therefore, I think that for IPN 120 to be sufficient, the snow and wind loads should be quite low. However, if you have the other model, you can send it for comparison. Necessary investigation will be done. 2) Hall macro is a tool created for fast modelling. After the intervention on the general geometry of the building and sections, the detail work is done after exiting the hall command. It is similar to the fringe. It is possible to quickly create on the 3D screen. We will try to help you if you have any problems. Good work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top