Core result evaluation

[statikçim]

Hello, it's not related to İdecad, but I hope someone will help. (Explanation: The building was designed according to the 2007 earthquake regulations and its license was taken in October 2018 and its construction was started in October 2018. However, when the samples taken during the concrete pouring were a little lower than normal, 28 days were waited and cored was taken from the relevant parts of the building. The attached values have been obtained.) Subject: How to interpret the values obtained when core is taken from the building according to the new regulation. Cores were taken in a newly built structure and the values obtained are as follows. Should the average be taken into account here, or should a negative interpretation be made if the smallest value is below the limit? The value in the report in the static design is 29 mPa. that is, one of the values here is 29 ungold, but an average of 30.43 mPa, in short, should the average or the smallest value be taken into account in the core results and an evaluation should be made? I will be glad if you help

 

[sahinsukru]

Re: KAROT SERVER EVALUATION

Hello, it's not related to İdecad, but I hope someone will help out (Explanation: The building was designed according to the 2007 earthquake regulations and was licensed in October 2018 and again in 2018 Construction started in October. However, when the samples taken during concrete pouring were slightly lower than normal, 28 days were waited and the values in the annex were taken from the relevant parts of the building.) Subject: How to interpret the values obtained when the core is taken from the building according to the new regulation. It is as follows in the appendix below. Should the average be taken into account here or should a negative interpretation be made if the smallest value is below the limit?In the report in the static design, the value is 29 mPA. That is, one of the values here is below 29, but the average is 30.43 mPa. I would appreciate it if you could help

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[asenyapitasarim]

Re: KAROT SERVER EVALUATION TS 500 fcmin= 28.44 .....the lowest compressive strength in the sample fcm =30.43 .....average compressive strength fck = 30 .....characteristic compressive strength fcmin = 28.44 fcm=30.43 fck=30 fck+1= <fcm.......30+1=<30.43 ..... 31 =< 30.43
fck-3=<fcmin.....30-3=<28.44 ..... 27 =< 28.44


TS 11222 ( * ) ve TS EN 206 ( * )

fck+4=<fcm.......30+4=<30.43 ..... 34 =< 30.43
fck-4=<fcmin.....30-4=<28.44 ..... 26 =< 28.44

( * ) : fcm için verilen kriterler kontrol belgesiz olarak üretilen betonlar içindir

TS 11222 ve TS EN 206 standartlarında başlangıç için fck+4 =< fcm MPa.....30+4 =< 30.43

TS EN 206 için sürekli halde ise fck+1.48*SİGMA

bence sıkıntı yok ufak tefek farklar önemli değil
eğer ortalamadan çok düşük veya yüksek sonuçlar varsa bunlar çıkarılır ortalama diğerleri üzerinden alınmalı

 

[statikçim]

Re: KAROT Servlet EVALUATION

TS 500 fcmin= 28.44 .....the lowest compressive strength in the sample fcm =30.43 .....average compressive strength fck = 30 .....characteristic compressive strength fcmin= 28.44 fcm=30.43 fck=30 fck+1= <fcm.......30+1=<30.43 ..... 31 =< 30.43
fck-3=<fcmin.....30-3=<28.44 ..... 27 =< 28.44

bence sıkıntı yok ufak tefek farklar önemli değil
eğer ortalamadan çok düşük veya yüksek sonuçlar varsa bunlar çıkarılır ortalam diğerleri üzerinde alınmalı

Bana da kalsa öyle ama belediye ve çevre şehircilik il kurumundaki bazı teknik elemanlar en düşük değerin 28.44 mpa olması bu değerinde statik tasarımdaki 29 mpa değerinden küçük olması sebebiyle kabul edilemeyeceğini söylenmişler. yeniden performans analizi yapılmasını ve binadan tekrar karotlar alınmasını söylemişler. statik proje müellifi benim bunlar neye dayanarak böyle söylemişler anlayamadım. şimdi olmayan hata için de binayı delik deşik etmeye benim de gönlüm razı gelmiyor. En küçük değeri baz alırsak bile onun da bazı formülü var yukarıda ''sahinsukru'' adlı üyenin göndermiş olduğu linklerdeki alternatiflere göre. Ama bu ''sahinsukru'' nın yolladığı yöntemler de kesin mi yani bunları baz alıp gidersek yönetmeliklerde yok bunlar demezler mi sonra.
Yani gerekli verileri toplayıp haklıysam gidip izah etmek istiyorum.

 

[sahinsukru]

Re: KAROT SERVER EVALUATION

TS 500 fcmin= 28.44 .....the lowest compressive strength in the sample fcm =30.43 .....average compressive strength fck = 30 .....characteristic compressive strength fcmin= 28.44 fcm=30.43 fck=30 fck+1= <fcm.......30+1=<30.43 ..... 31 =< 30.43
fck-3=<fcmin.....30-3=<28.44 ..... 27 =< 28.44

bence sıkıntı yok ufak tefek farklar önemli değil
eğer ortalamadan çok düşük veya yüksek sonuçlar varsa bunlar çıkarılır ortalam diğerleri üzerinde alınmalı

Bana da kalsa öyle ama belediye ve çevre şehircilik il kurumundaki bazı teknik elemanlar en düşük değerin 28.44 mpa olması bu değerinde statik tasarımdaki 29 mpa değerinden küçük olması sebebiyle kabul edilemeyeceğini söylenmişler. yeniden performans analizi yapılmasını ve binadan tekrar karotlar alınmasını söylemişler. statik proje müellifi benim bunlar neye dayanarak böyle söylemişler anlayamadım. şimdi olmayan hata için de binayı delik deşik etmeye benim de gönlüm razı gelmiyor. En küçük değeri baz alırsak bile onun da bazı formülü var yukarıda ''sahinsukru'' adlı üyenin göndermiş olduğu linklerdeki alternatiflere göre. Ama bu ''sahinsukru'' nın yolladığı yöntemler de kesin mi yani bunları baz alıp gidersek yönetmeliklerde yok bunlar demezler mi sonra.
Yani gerekli verileri toplayıp haklıysam gidip izah etmek istiyorum.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Bu linkte , karotların nasıl değerlendirileceği konusunda örnekler var. İlgili yönetmelikler de yazılmış, çok açıklayıcı ve çok yeni. 23 mayıs 2019 tarihinde İzmir imo da sunulmuş. Başka ne gerekir ki ?

 

[statikçim]

Why can&#39;t I write a message? It gives an error, the screenshot doesn&#39;t load (okay, it&#39;s fixed, it was due to the bigequal symbol)

 

[statikçim]

I did not understand this place. In alternative B, the two parties were called on the condition that an agreement was reached and they made different calculations. For example, &quot;fck,is&quot; is calculated in additional picture 1, but it is not used in the following steps. (For example, I calculate my value in the attached picture 1, but I do not know where it will be used) in the examples, &quot;fis, lowest &gt;= 0.85(fck-4) The formula &#39;&#39; is used and the calculation is made by leaving the cube value instead of the cylinder instead of fck. Is there a bit of inconsistency or I don&#39;t understand, can you explain if you have time. What is the logic of calculating the value of &#39;&#39;fck,is&#39;&#39; in the B approach, where do we use this value 1.picture=

 

[sahinsukru]

I don&#39;t understand this. In alternative B, the two parties were asked on the condition that there was an agreement and they made different calculations. For example, &quot;fck,is&quot; is calculated in additional picture 1, but it is not used in the following steps. (for example, in the attached picture 1. I&#39;m calculating my value but I don&#39;t know where it will be used) in the examples, the formula &quot;fis, lowest &gt;= 0.85(fck-4)&quot; was used and the calculation was made by leaving the cube value instead of the cylinder. What is the logic of calculating the value of &#39;&#39;fck,is&#39;&#39; in approach B, where do we use this value 1.picture=

Concrete class C25 , that is C25/30 ===&gt; Sometimes a mistake is made specifically to attract the attention of the audience in presentations. and this may be one of them. &quot;Two parties agreeing&quot; means that the suitability of the core received is also accepted by the disputing parties. Such as the owner - the contractor, the building inspection - the concrete firm...

 

[asenyapitasarim]

The compressive strength of the cube sample is more than the cylinder 0.85 for C25, 0.82 for C30, there must be a cube compressive strength at the marked places, the coefficient for the wrong C30 is not 0.85, but 0.82. I couldn&#39;t see any other wrong.

 

[ilkem]

Mr. Statikçim, core results are evaluated according to TS EN 13791. Since the standard test results were lower than TS 13515, the core was taken. In this case, the core results are evaluated according to Article 9 of TS EN 13791. Three cores were taken from the ground and mezzanine floors. The lowest compressive strength of these cores should be fis, the lowest&gt;=0.85(fck-4). The core strength, whose length and nominal diameter are equal to each other and 10 cm, is equal to the cube sample strength of 15 cm. Therefore, you will substitute the characteristic cube strength of the concrete class in the formula. The lowest core compressive strength for C25/30 concrete is 22.1 Mpa; For C30/37 concrete, it should be 28.05 Mpa. If your project concrete class is C25 or C30, there is no problem in concrete strength. There is no problem if the ground floor is greater than or equal to 29.90 Mpa minimum and mezzanine 28.44 Mpa minimum 0.85(fck-4). Good work.

 

[statikçim]

Sn Statikçim, the core results are evaluated according to TS EN 13791. Since the standard test results were low compared to TS 13515, the core was taken. In this case, the core results are evaluated according to TS EN 13791 Article 9. 3 cores were taken from the mezzanine floor.The lowest compressive strength of these cores should be fis, the lowest&gt;=0.85(fck-4) Core strength of 10 cm, with equal length and nominal diameter, 15 cm cube sample Therefore, you will replace the characteristic cube strength of the concrete class in the formula.The lowest core compressive strength for C25/30 concrete should be 22.1 Mpa, and for C30/37 concrete 28.05 Mpa. If your project concrete class is C25, C30, there is no problem in concrete strength. floor min 29.90 Mpa, mezzanine min 28.44 Mpa min if greater or equal to 0.85(fck-4), no problem.Good work.

Thank you for your answers. Is this calculation method accurate? there are other formulas in the links for example fm, The formula n,is&gt;=0.85(fck+1.48xs). I did not understand the following part in the formula you calculated: why do we substitute the &quot;characteristic cube strength&quot; of the concrete class in the formula. we do not put the cylindrical strength.

&#39;&#39;The core strength of 10 cm with equal length and nominal diameter is equal to the strength of 15 cm cubed specimen.

 

[asenyapitasarim]

examine the k values in the table

 

[ilkem]

Is this calculation method accurate, because there are other formulas in the links posted by sn sahinsukru, for example fm,n,is&gt;=0.85(fck+1.48xs) formula. : why do we substitute the &quot;characteristic cube strength&quot; of the concrete class in the formula. we do not include the cylindrical strength.

&quot;The core strength of 10 cm with the same length and nominal diameter, 15 cm cube sample equal to its strength.

I did not understand this part

I am adding TS EN 13791. Read on and you will find answers to all your questions. Do not look for solutions elsewhere. The standard that binds you is to look at it and evaluate it. You give your answer to the relevant places according to what the standard says. The constant k1 in the table you added Sn asenyapidesign is the pressure block coefficient. Cylinder is not a coefficient used in cube compressive strength conversions. It has nothing to do with the core results. Good work...

 

[asenyapitasarim]

your sharing was helpful, thanks, what do you think about the control in ts 500 we mentioned above?

 

[ilkem]

your sharing was useful, thanks, what do you think about the control in ts 500 mentioned above

Although not exactly what you mentioned above, it is according to TS 500/February 2000 &quot;Item 3.4 quality control and acceptance conditions in concrete&quot; Only this control is valid for samples taken from fresh concrete. However, TS 500/February 2000 has been amended several times. Lastly, Article 3.4 was revised as &quot;Quality inspection and acceptance conditions in concrete must comply with TS 13515 Annex B1.&quot; ( TS 500/T3 acceptance date: 13.11.2014) As a result, fresh concrete sample results (also sampling plan) are evaluated according to TS 13515 Annex B1, core results are evaluated according to TS EN 13791. For information purposes, you can examine TS 13515. Ben I would have added it.

 

[exen]

Hello. I saw the topic late, but I read most of what was written. The structure is now in its current position and TBDY 2018 15.2.5.3 should not be overlooked if a performance analysis is required. I wanted to make a short reminder.