German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish Dear Official; As we have tried to explain together with the projects in the appendix, I have tried to express the mistakes made by our civil engineer friends around us. (My Turkish Might Be Inadequate. I'M SORRY. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION BELOW, REGARDING MY CALL WITH ONE OF YOU RELATED TO THE SUBJECT FARUK.) Recently, due to architectural concerns, TBDY 2018 has limited the solutions with a certain height (including the height of the solutions with hollow blocks). has gravitated towards beamless flooring solutions. In this regard, as you can see in the annexes, the friends chose the way to go for a solution by defining the floor with beams in places where there are no architectural concerns, or by defining non-beamed flooring in the axes coming in the middle of the room (!!!!) in order to reduce the floor thickness. These friends, who defined all floors as semi-rigid diaphragms in the IDE TBDY 2018 Analysis settings wizard, arranged the principles of ensuring continuity by connecting the columns/walls to each other with beams and/or transferring the horizontal force transmission with slabs in non-beamed slabs and beams in beamed slabs (????? ???). The solution algorithm of the IDE that I want to ask you is about how it perceives and solves these designs. Accordingly: a. As can be seen in the annexes, how does it behave in solutions for beamless flooring and semi-rigid diaphragm in structures that do not even have a certain axis system? b. If we talk about the approach of friends, do earthquake forces transfer with beams where the beams are and with the slabs where they are not? c. In the trainings we received, it was carefully emphasized that the solution system should be monolithic in order for the building to behave stably under the effects of earthquakes while designing. How true is a mixed system on the same floor, even when the approaches such as beams on the 1st floor, hollow blocks on the 2nd floor, and cassette solutions on the 3rd floor are never approved and dictated to us by our expert teachers. D. According to TBDY 2018, the principle that vertical loads must be met with columns and shear walls and all earthquake forces must be met by shear walls in solutions made with beamless flooring seems to have been bypassed in the attached project. Here is how the IDE algorithm takes an approach. (NOTE: In order to better explain the AUTOCAD example from friends in the attachment, I have drawn it as IDE, designed it with their perspective, made a solution and delivered it to you.)
FLOORING WITHOUT BEAM
- Thread starter sensea
- Start date
This project, in my opinion, does not fall under the beamless flooring category. In the wizard, the carrier system is selected as a beamless slab, this is incorrect. This is a very (bad) frame system structure. Earthquake regulation says: It just begins, if you notice. This project is not eligible for this article. Also, see what it says in A12 type: This project has nothing to do with A12, but A12 is selected in the wizard. The carrier system of this project is column-weighted. Maybe A15 can be chosen. So the question d you ask doesn't matter, engineer shouldn't choose this system like that. This actually answers some of the other questions 
It seems like there is a wrong regulation point of view here. The person who made the project will not try to have it done by choosing a system type according to his/her own head from the regulation and telling the program "to carry all the earthquake loads of my building to the curtains". It will choose the type of structure [/b] that is suitable for the actual behavior of the building's structural system. In other words, if you want the entire earthquake load to be carried by curtains, your building should be that way. (A giant big core in the middle, with auxiliary columns around it). The building should behave that way. Think about this: when you build the building, it does not know with what program and with what assumptions the solution is made, it behaves as it is in nature.
It seems like there is a wrong regulation point of view here. The person who made the project will not try to have it done by choosing a system type according to his/her own head from the regulation and telling the program "to carry all the earthquake loads of my building to the curtains". It will choose the type of structure [/b] that is suitable for the actual behavior of the building's structural system. In other words, if you want the entire earthquake load to be carried by curtains, your building should be that way. (A giant big core in the middle, with auxiliary columns around it). The building should behave that way. Think about this: when you build the building, it does not know with what program and with what assumptions the solution is made, it behaves as it is in nature.Levent Özpak
Active Member
Dear Sensea, you can download the video and document in the link below about rigid and semi-rigid diaphragm design in ideCAD program. You can review."sensea":1cad2rrk" said:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Calculation conditions for beamless flooring systems are specified in TBDY 2018. In case of selecting slab type beamless slab in the TBDY wizard, two-stage calculations are made automatically in carrier systems containing non-beam slabs (Mushroom slab) as per Article 4.3.4.4. This information is given in the reports. The use of different flooring types in buildings and the choice of flooring type are under the control of the engineer.