Exceeding the deflection limit in beams

ozguratlas

New Member
Good day 1-Removing the wall loads on the beams 2-Always check the deflection condition, choosing 3-Increasing the dimensions Although I have applied these operations one by one, I have the problem that the deflection limit has been exceeded on the balcony, is there anyone who can find a solution to this? Respects..
 
Hello, you must meet the conditions of the "Height/Span Ratios that do not require Deflection Calculation in Bending Elements" given in Table 13.1 of TS 500. Unver ÖZCAN
 
I can't edit and send it because I'm looking from the demo. There are a few points that I am curious about that attract my attention, let me ask them. I wonder why you threw 60 beams at the end of the 1st protrusions. As a result, the concrete will fill up and cause an extra weight on the overhang. 2. There are several stud beams. Since the floor is hollow, why didn't you put beams from column to column rather than stud? these beams will be angled, but I think it's better than studs. 3. There is also flooring inside the elevator curtain on each floor. but in reality it will be a space, why did you assign flooring there? I don't know how much the architecture allows, but I think putting a column in the middle of the building will help reduce the studs. I recommend you to make a solution with the 5th ladder. 6. I think there is a problem with the combination of s5 and k22. maybe the nodal point of the beam stays inside the column, but in practice, the reinforcements of almost half of the beam will not come to the column and it coincides with the tightening region of the beam in its extension, which we avoid. The 7th structure was dissolved as ductile but the r values are 4 and 5. There is no foundation under the 8th frets. In the superstructure interactive solution, ide 7 sees the bottom of the carrier as built-in when there is no foundation, so settlements do not occur, so there is no realistic solution for this reason. 9. What is your chosen gap filling material of 0.17 for the g weight of the slab. 10. Finally, there is a situation that I saw in the application related to reinforcement. Since the work is generally desired to be completed quickly, certain irons are ordered cut and bent. Therefore, I think it would be better to equip it accordingly. For example, a piece with cut colon sprouts is requested, stirrups are ready. but the beam and rib reinforcements come to the construction site in length. For this reason, I think it will be easier to use 16-gauge iron in columns and 14-gauge iron in beams. In your project, there are 16 bars in the beams and 14 in the columns. I humbly recommend you to consider the application in the selection of equipment. because unfortunately we are fighting with the masters in the market. If you do it in a project that the baby can apply, those masters will come out and say, "I am a 30-year master, I have not seen such a thing".
 
friends, I also get the error that the deflection limit in the beam is exceeded, but when I examine the reinforcements of 220 cm in length, the reinforcements appear 0. There are only additional reinforcements that have not been calculated, what could be the reason for this? I deleted the beam and did it again but the same thing happened again? I will be glad if you help
 
Hello, I fixed the project. My suggestions; Geometry errors, the stairs are supported by the building and the solution is up to you. Unver ÖZCAN
 
Thank you very much, unverbey. But why did this happen? I couldn't get his answer.. I wonder why the reinforcements were not calculated?
 
"unalmh":3so7fswf" said:
unverbey, thank you very much. But I couldn't get the answer why this happened.. I wonder why the reinforcements were not calculated?
Since both K47 and K14 beams were tried to be equipped according to the cantilever reinforcement type, the reinforcements it doesn't show up. Run the command Modify/Beam-Foundation/Consoles. Select the beams in order and check "Not console" in the dialog that opens. Good job
 
Back
Top