Ground group?

[cakilomer]

Hello everyone, I wish you a good work. 1) The effects of the rotations of the columns and especially the wall foundations on the soils in the C and D groups defined in Chapter 6, Table 6.1, on the calculation of the load-bearing system should be taken into account with appropriate idealization methods. (2.2.1.5) -According to this article in the regulation, structure-foundation interaction should be done together in C and D group soils, that is, some of the rotations and collapses in the foundation, foundation damping, and these are taken into account. a situation may occur (at the points we have overlooked) Is there a different situation related to this? 2) While calculating the ground safety stress, is there a chance to adjust according to the negative situation when calculating the G+Q, G+Q+E loads in the program? because in some cases, the earthquake situation can be less than normal loading. 3)6.3.2.1. Soil safety stress defined according to static loads and horizontal and axial safe bearing load of pile in pile foundations can be increased by maximum 50% in case of earthquake. It is always possible to increase by 50% in the program, regardless of the floor group. Are there any different situations related to this? Thank you for the comments of valuable friends who have opinions, good work OMER FARUK ÇAKIL

 

[Levent Özpak]

Hello everyone, I wish you a good work 1) The effects of the rotations of the columns and especially the shear foundations on the foundations of the columns, which fall on the C and D groups defined in Chapter 6, Table 6.1, on the calculation of the load-bearing system should be taken into account with appropriate idealization methods. (2.2.1.5) -According to this article in the regulation, the structure-foundation interaction should be done together in the C and D group soils, that is, some of the rotations and collapses in the foundation, the foundation damping predicts these to be taken into account. However, when choosing the soil group in the program, this does not contribute to the analysis. an inconsistent situation may occur (at the points we overlooked) Is there a different situation related to this?

Hello Ömer, According to the Floor group, the case of making a superstructure-basic interactive solution is at the user's discretion.

2 ) While calculating the ground safety stress, we have a chance to adjust according to the negative situation when calculating the G+Q, G+Q+E loads in the program is it? because in some cases, the seismic situation may be less than normal loadings.

Stress control on non-beamed raft foundations If "Use earthquake loadings in ground safety control of non-beamed rafts" option is checked in Analysis Settings/Foundation Soil tab, according to G+Q+/-E, If it is not marked, it is done according to G+Q. Both situations should be considered in the program (Stress control according to the negative of G+q and G+Q+/-E is among our notes). If the " option is checked, the control is performed according to the negative (G+Q) and (G+Q+/-E) loadings.

3)6.3.2.1. The soil safety stress defined according to the static loads and the horizontal and axial safe bearing load of the pile in pile foundations can be increased by maximum 50% in case of earthquakes, in the soils included in Groups (A), (B) and (C) in Table 6.1 as the foundation soil. Regardless of the group, it is always possible to increase by 50%. Are there any other cases related to this? Thank you for the comments of dear friends who have opinions, good work ÖMER FARUK ÇAKIL

Whether or not TDY 2007 article 6.3.2.1 is implemented is at the discretion of the user. Good work