German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish Hello, I am a student and I am drawing a project, and I would like you to look at my deficiencies and help me. There are only bugs with the curtains that I see now. I used curtains on the 2nd basement floor, as there is a hollow block floor. I took r as -2 because there is a curtain on the 2nd basement floor. I think there is no problem in the analysis settings, but it gives an error of less than 0.40, should I add my curtain?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can you look at the errors in my project..
- Thread starter gencideci
- Start date
I think your curtains on the second basement floor are not enough to enter a rigid basement -2. Correct the errors in the geometry control In the second basement, the curtain and the beam overlap, you need to correct this error. You should make a semi-rigid diaphragm solution. As Unver said before, don't you have a ladder in the system? You are laying hollow (ribbed) floors, you do not take into account the chimney locations. Thinking of drilling through beams or cutting ribs and making a chimney? you have approximately 12m long beams in the system and they are connected with studs (see what Ünver said + see attached link
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
If you are making ribbed floors and putting a wall on it, you need to increase the live loads by 150 kg/m2. You made a console from a beam while you are not even looking positively from the column to the consoles.( Cantilever from beam KZ234, KZ248) The rigidity of the system is insufficient. I recommend adding a curtain. ( I wrote down what I saw with a quick glance, I will try to review it again when I have time)You need to increase the rigidity of the system. The curtain you placed is insufficient. Try to place the curtains symmetrically in both directions as your architectural project allows. I am sending a study as an example. (Check the slab and beam loads.) It is not a sufficient solution to increase the support of multiple columns or shear walls. The important thing is how the column, beam and curtain trio are arranged. It is the ratio between dimensions. Take care not to cut the ribs. Pay attention to the center of the horizontally placed beams and the columns as much as possible. The important thing is to establish the general carrier system. Efforts to shape architectural shapes with a carrier system may cause mistakes. Architectural projects are not immutable laws. Of course, you can convince your architect with new suggestions suitable for the carrier system in your mind that will not spoil the essence of the project, and you can establish healthier carrier systems with minor changes.
Brother Nedim, I would like to say a few things, if you excuse me; 1) Do you think it would be healthier if we define ribbed beams in cantilever ribbed floors, and the beams can transfer loads to the columns more easily? 2) I had a question about the logic of the idea. I am getting an error on the beams that this transverse rib presses on (In my general projects) Now this transverse rib is getting rid of vertical ribs on it, but when a rib is stuck in our main beam, it gets an error. I hope I can explain. What do you think is the cause of this problem? 3) It is considered appropriate to dissolve semi-rigid and even semi-rigid slabs in hollow floor slabs. Normally, we consider our slab slabs to be at least 12 cm thick and rigid. Do we not provide an environment for the earthquake loads to be less than necessary? NOTE : My aim is to provide information from experienced elders like you and to do the right things. Respects . INS. MUH OMER FARUK ÇAKIL
The butt beams of cantilever ribs can be drawn constructively Sometimes, when there is a simple way to simplify the system, various structural system errors are made due to the efforts to put the butt beam (such as beams made of cantilever beams)"cakilomer":2nw8zn11" said:Nedim Brother, I would like to say a few things, if you allow; 1) Do you think it would be healthier if we define ribbed beams in cantilever ribbed floors, if the beams can transfer loads to the columns more easily?
In IdeStatik, we make transverse teeth with the logic of cassette laying instead of one-way rib laying. As a result, the calculation logic is the same. If you explain what you want to say here with a concrete example, the friends at IdeYAPI technical service will give more detailed information. But in general, I can say that; It would not be correct to think of the female in the other direction as a carrier element placed on floors exceeding 4 m. Then we should have called it a stud beam, a secondary beam, not a tooth. Another name for these teeth is the distributing tooth. The purpose of the distribution tooth is to distribute the load as much as possible, thus making the flooring more rigid and contributing to the reduction of deflections."cakilomer":2nw8zn11" said:2) I had a question about the logic of the idine, the regulation was the hollow block exceeding 4m. It wants us to identify transverse ribs on the floors. For example, there is an 8*4 m slab. When we define a transverse rib right in the middle of our ribs in the direction of 8 m, this transverse rib is calculated, but this rib is easily saved. However, I get an error on the beams that this transverse rib presses (In my general projects) Now this The transverse ribs get rid of the ribs in the vertical direction, but when a rib is stuck in our main beam, I get an error. I hope I have been able to explain. Why do you think this problem arises.
What I didn't fully understand what you want to say. Especially I couldn't understand the second part of your sentence (double circle .... etc.) But the analysis of the model in semi-rigid is done in the closest way to the truth. Of course, when we take the slab thicknesses low in rib slabs, of course, we cause a decrease in rigidity. This is not a calculation, but in a real sense. That's exactly why it should be calculated as a semi-rigid diaphragm, and this stiffness drop should not affect the system. The person must be correctly identified. The important problem here is actually the fact that the rib teeth are in different directions, rather than the decrease in stiffness caused by the decrease in slab thickness. In other words, some of the slabs behave rigidly in one direction (direction parallel to the teeth due to the teeth), while in the other direction they are only as rigid as the slab thickness and 40-50 cm slab width. That's why we can't consider all floors rigid (even at the same level). Therefore, semi-rigid diaphragm solution will be more accurate. I hope I was able to answer some of your questions. With love..."cakilomer":2nw8zn11" said:3) It is considered appropriate to solve hollow slabs as semi-rigid and even semi-rigid in all slab types. We normally consider our slab slabs to be at least 12 cm thick and rigid. In your opinion, our hollow slabs are at least 7 cm thick. Do we not reduce the rigidity of the system due to a difference of cm, and accordingly provide an environment for the earthquake loads to be less than necessary?. However, this is the point I am talking about for double circle places, except for tunnel formwork and beamless floors, of course, semi-rigid solution is the best.