After this article, when Section 4.10.1-4.10.3 - 16.7.3 is examined; we will calculate the design-based forces (MNT) as in the table you gave, there is no problem in this, but the loads acting on the structure (GQ) why? I don't understand why we shouldn't increase it with coefficients. What I understand from both the regulation and the application examples handbook is: 1. Combinations are formed with loads acting on the structure, (with increasing loads and unfavorable scenarios are drawn), analyzes are made 2. The obtained as a result of the analyzes section effects (MNT) are calculated by multiplying the coefficients defined in 4.10.1 and 4.10.3 (the table you prepared for the foundation), then the design phase is started. In TBDY 16.7.3.1, static load combinations is mentioned and reference is made to TS500. Even though we talked on our feet after the seminar, I felt the need to ask because it was not clear due to time constraints. . I would appreciate it if you could shed some more light on this. good work, best regards."Ismail Hakki Besler":lkm80s6u" said:If you mean soil and snow load, this is not among our notes, if it is the basic account, the combination shown in the regulation Symbolic. The program does it as described in the section of forces to be transferred to the foundation. These increases cannot be done with combinations. You cannot see these increases in combinations. You cannot combine as in that book. Because the regulation does not say to increase every element and the end effects of the element in the same way. I wish it did not bother us. The regulation is basement and for buildings without basements, MNT also asks for increments, often not with the same coefficient.For example, in buildings without cellars, the M and N increments of the walls are different, and in buildings with basements, the coefficient is different for cases where the critical shear height starts higher than the upper level of the foundation. If the regulation 4.10.3.2 It can be done by combination, if we assume that there is none. It cannot be done with a combination in buildings without drums, it can be done in buildings with basements if we accept a fixed coefficient. ideCAD calculates the foundation by multiplying the relevant effects with the relevant coefficients. The values shown in the program supply are raw values. If the regulation brings these increases in a way that they can be done with combination, we will change them to combination.
Thanks for your notification, you can use General Settings, Grid Borders tab to make changes to grid and border settings"exen":3u0b4b42" said:A minor bug with version 10.05. Clicking on the grid and border settings closes the program.
Can you add your project?"Turguttasdemir":bq1jeiup" said:Easy. I have just completed the upgrade of my program. I am trying to solve the project. after completing everything When I examined the beam expansions, I saw that the stirrups did not tighten on the beams. How can I fix it, but I could not find the solution?
We're working on it, it will come in the next update."batuhann28522":2xwy8m7z" said:good day.I wonder if the risky building analysis came with the last update or I couldn't. get an analysis first error
"YasinTezel":1z9l0pe9" said:Hi, Normally, a green check mark is given next to the Explanation or if the BYS condition is not met, a red X is pressed. You may have changed the report font size or because you zoomed in on the report (+/-), the check mark is shown in the picture below. According to the report, your project needs to be approved with a green tick because BYS = 6. If there is a different situation, add your project.
It is not an error. In A14, A15 systems, if the moment taken by the curtains is less than 40% as per Article 4.3.4.5, one excess of the allowed BYS is taken into account (BYS>=3) 40% since your BYS=6 It can be less than 40% If BYS=2 in A14,A15, it cannot be less than 40%."yusuf15hira17":15pxzll6" said:So is it not a mistake if the ratio is less than 0.40 .[/quote ]
ideCAD calculates automatically according to the Equivalent earthquake load method according to the new regulation.It uses these results in the torsional irregularity calculation in A1 where the equivalent earthquake load must be used, in the B2 soft story calculation and in the enlargement of the internal forces and displacements found as a result of the modal calculation. However, the linear calculation method is used in the earthquake calculation of the structure. It only calculates earthquakes with Mod combination method.You cannot choose equivalent earthquake method for your Structure as calculation method in 10.xx versions."MrtGrsl":2vgqxkrh" said:How can I get an analysis according to the equivalent earthquake load method according to the new regulation?
Hello, In order to be a cassette slab, you have to meet the cassette conditions in both directions. You have defined a tie beam to the rib slab with 1.5m intervals in one direction. To be considered as a cassette, a maximum span of 70 cm must be used in both directions. For the direction of the teeth, make the tooth spacing max 70 cm or you can turn the tiles into plaque tiling."fathhh":3js3z1ti" said:Hi. We tried to solve a static project with the link below. We chose the type of slab beam or cassette slab.Only 3 slabs on the ground floor and one eaves on the 2nd floor we converted the slab to cassette.There is no error in the calculation or the report, but is there anything contrary to the regulation and calculation system? evaluates and thinks that the flooring system (ribbed) should be replaced. I would appreciate it if you check it out. Thanks in advance. Take it easy.You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
As you said, Mr. Yasin, I converted the floors on the ground floor to a tape, the final version is in the link and there seems to be no violation of the regulation as far as I have examined. In fact, if we solve the entire system as cassette flooring, the regulation tells me that you can solve high ductile without curtains, right?"YasinTezel":39gyciwm" said:Hello, You need to meet the cassette conditions in both directions for cassette installation. You have defined a tie beam to the rib slab with 1.5m intervals in one direction. In order to be considered as a cassette, a maximum opening of 70 cm must be used in both directions. For both sides of the cassette flooring, make the tooth spacing max 70cm or you can turn the floors into plaque flooring."fathhh":39gyciwm" said:Hello. We tried to solve a static project with the link below. I want to ask; We chose the flooring type as plate beam or cassette flooring. We only converted the slab on 3 floors on the ground floor and on one eaves on the 2nd floor. There is no error in the calculation or the report, but is there a violation of the regulation and the calculation system here? Friends in the municipality consider partial cassette flooring like a hollow block and think that the flooring system (ribbed) should be changed. I would appreciate it if you could check it. Thanks in advance.You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Why can't we choose it? Shouldn't it be used to solve the structure without A1 and B2 irregularities or with BYS>=5 though?"Ismail Hakki Feeds":22i4q95p" said:ideCAD automatically calculates according to the Equivalent earthquake load method according to the new regulation. It uses these results in the calculation of torsional irregularity in A1, where the equivalent earthquake load must be used, in the calculation of soft stories in B2, and in the calculation of magnification of internal forces and displacements found as a result of the modal calculation. However, in the earthquake calculation of the structure, only the mode combination method is used as the linear calculation method. You cannot choose the equivalent earthquake method for your Structure as the calculation method in 10.xx versions."MrtGrsl":22i4q95p" said:Equivalent according to new regulation How can I make an analysis according to the earthquake load method?
German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish