Double Reinforcement Error in Beam Nmax and Slab

[lilahmiharbi]

I have a project with 2 basement floors + 13 floors and an elevator tower on it. When I have my project analyzed with a semi-rigid diaphragm, I get the error that the beam exceeds nmax in the 2nd basement. There is a shear wall with a height of 2m just below the beam where I get the beam nmax error. The reason why the curtain has a height of 2m in that part is that it coincides with the basement ventilation. Again, I get a double reinforcement error on the floors in the basement. When I search your forum, it says that this error is usually caused by incorrect tile boundaries, but when I check the tile, I see that there is no problem with the tile borders. Can you help by reviewing my project? If there are errors in data entry, can you write them too? Thank you for your interest. Best regards; Project file:

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

 

[Godfrey]

Hello everyone, - First of all, in terms of carrier system design, central curtains are not effectively connected to the system. When the alpha_s ratios on the foundation are examined, it is seen that some curtains do not receive the required level of horizontal load. - Stud beams were made at a level that should not be possible for a structure of this size. There is even a stud attached to the stud. - There are many unsupported beam warnings in geometry control. Therefore, you get double reinforcement error in some slabs. Review these warnings. - In closed overhangs, the columns should also be connected from the inside with beams (at least 50/36 cm horizontal beams). Hanging 36-12=24 cm beams from the ceiling of the hall is not important for structural safety. If I were at the municipality's reinforced concrete investigation desk, I would not approve such designs, and should not be. - In a 16-storey building, the short side of the walls and columns should not be 25 cm, even if there is no weakness in the calculations. Then, you will see that the 25 cm (20 cm when the rust margins are deducted) column-beam joints are compressed at the construction site, there is a pile of reinforcements and the placement of the concrete casting becomes difficult. And this is the worst possible situation for the design and fabrication of a structure, as it weakens the beam-to-column connections.

 

[unver]

Mr. lilahmiharbi MY SUGGESTIONS: --It solves without any error when it is solved as a fully rigid diaphragm without changing anything. (If this solution is to be used, ladder loads must be added.) -- Add (green) curtain as I have given in the formwork plan -- beams and beam free shears I marked. Check out these and the like. Take it easy Unver ÖZCAN

 

[batuhann28522]

Good day, whatever I did, I couldn't fix the Nmax and cutting errors. Thanks in advance. I have to solve semi-rigid or full-rigid

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

 

[unver]

We'll help if you upload it to another download site.

 

[batuhann28522]

We will help you if you upload it to another download site.

I couldn't fix Nmax and cutting errors, I would be very grateful if you could help me. Thanks in advance. I have to solve semi-rigid or full-rigid. All of a sudden, the ground safety is very insufficient, reducing the stress I can't do ampatman much

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

 

[unver]

Hello. My suggestions:

I need to solve semi-rigid or fully rigid.

--Definitely solve semi-rigid diaphragm. There is no rigid diaphragm solution in the new regulation,

Also, the floor security is very insufficient. What can I do to reduce the stresses? Let it be 30 cm, --20 cm wide beam stepping on the column should be 25 cm, --You can reduce the roof's live loads and remove the wall loads, --4. Instead of the interlocking beams on the floor, I made K72, add the additions to the edges in the drawing, --4. I arranged the beams K16-K55, K29-K71 on the floor, --Let the beams center the columns, --Make the ladder support and solve it together. I arranged the things that caught my eye in the project. Unver ÖZCAN

 

[batuhann28522]

Hi My Suggestions: --Definitely solve semi-rigid diaphragm. There is no rigid diaphragm solution in the new regulation, --You can increase the floor safety by 50% since your floor group is A, --There are no curtains on the basement floor from the floor general settings Remove the relevant ticks, --Let the narrow side of the columns be at least 30 cm, -The beam pressing on the column with a width of -20 cm should be 25 cm, --You can reduce the roof's live loads and remove the wall loads, -I made K72 instead of the interlocking beams on the 4th floor. Add the additions in the drawing, -I arranged the beams K16-K55, K29-K71 on the 4th floor, --Let the beams center the columns, --Make the stair support and solve it together I arranged the highlights of the project Unver ÖZCAN

Thank you very much. I don't know if I pulled it, but I don't understand why it gives a geometric error on the 5th floor (because the beam height cannot be less than 3 times the floor thickness) all my floors are hollow floor tiles on other floors. no y though. Can we increase 50% of earthquake loading in z3 soil class? We are not in the earthquake zone. If we can't, what is your suggestion for the foundation?

 

[unver]

Hello

Thank you very much. I don't know if I caught your attention while examining the project, but I don't understand why it gives a geometric error on the 5th floor (because the beam height cannot be less than 3 times the floor thickness) all my floors are hollow slabs on other floors. nothing.

--This message is given because your rib floor thickness is 12 cm. When you reduce the thickness on both sides of the beam, the warning goes away.

we are not in the earthquake zone.

Turkey everywhere in the earthquake zone, more or less,

can we increase the earthquake loading by 50% in z3 soil class. We are not in the earthquake zone. If we can't, what is your suggestion for the foundation

According to TDY2007 : According to Table 6.2 class Z3 refers to C and D group soils. You will determine which soil group you have entered by looking at the ground report and decide whether to increase the ground safety by 50% according to TDY2007 Article 6.3.2.1. z. Unver ÖZCAN

 

[batuhann28522]

Hi --This message is given because your rib slab thickness is 12 cm. When you reduce the thickness on both sides of the beam, the warning will be removed. All over Turkey is an earthquake zone, more or less, according to TDY2007 : According to Table 6.2 soil class Z3 refers to C and D groups. You will determine which soil group you have entered by looking at the soil report and you will decide whether to increase the ground safety by 50% according to TDY2007 Article 6.3.2.1. Ünver ÖZCAN

Thank you, Unver. our group is C class and it says it can be increased by 50% max according to the regulation. That means I can select the option to increase the soil safety stress by 50% in case of earthquake loading in the analysis settings, right? in case of trouble, or how should we respond?

 

[NYILMAZ]

Thank you, Unver. When I look at the soil report, it says that our soil group is C class and can be increased by maximum 50% according to the regulation. That means I can select the option to increase the soil safety stress by 50% in case of earthquake loading in the analysis settings, right? yes, when we select that option, it seems to be increased by 50% in the basic reports, will this cause trouble for us in case the building inspection examines the report, or how should we respond

Yes, you can increase it. There is no problem. It will be enough to show the regulation like the door in your hand to the examiner. The attached report It is clearly seen that you used the option to increase (red) and why you increased (green).

 

[unver]

Hello

When I look at the ground report, it says that our soil group is C class and can be increased by 50% according to the regulation.

As stated in your report, you can increase the ground safety stress by 50%. As Mr. NYILMAZ said, I don't think there will be any problems. Unver ÖZCAN

 

[batuhann28522]

Hi

When I look at the ground report, it says that our soil group is C class and can be increased by 50% according to the regulation.

As stated in your report, the ground safety stress is 50% You can increase it. As Mr. NYILMAZ said, I don't think it will be a problem. Unver ÖZCAN

Thank you. I have the same problem in block B, because I cannot amplify the ground safety, I get a ground safety error on one side. It actually saves 50cm ampatman. Also, if I use a raft foundation with beams, that is, if I constantly lay a foundation, it does not save even if I throw a raft in between, how can I solve the reason why it does not increase the safety of 50% in the analysis of continuous foundations.

 

[rmertguler]

Good day, I couldn't fix the Nmax error on the beams, whatever I did, I would appreciate if you could help me with the beams in the same direction, generally in the basement. Thanks in advance.

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