Ground safety stress negative

2

201968

New Member
In the attached project, the raft foundation thickness was saved at 95 cm. (I was able to eliminate the negative ground safety stress error this way) Since there is a sub-basement in the building, I added the extra filling and concrete loads to the coating loads section. 1-Can I reduce the foundation height to 95 cm in foundation design? If I can do this, what changes do I need to make in my project? 2-Are there any mistakes that I need to fix in the project in general? I would appreciate your help. Best regards
 
Re: FLOOR SAFETY STRESS IS NEGATIVE I couldn't figure out where I made a mistake about ground safety, can you help me?
 
Re: GROUND SECURITY STRESSING NEGATIVE Hello My suggestions --5. remove floor (attic) wall loads, reduce live loads, --mark as GÖGEBAKAN elevator/machine room, --correct errors in geometry control, --20 cm beam width cannot be made according to TBDY2008 regulation, --group curtains, --stairs bracing not done, --Separate the basement walls from the columns/walls, --Do not build consoles from beams, --Make calculations by choosing 4.8.5.1 from 4.8.5 in the last calculation, Ünver ÖZCAN
 
Re: GROUND SAFETY STRESS NEGATIVE Hello; You can use load reduction according to TS498, it solves your load bearing problem. It would be more appropriate to ignore the 20/30 beams on the balconies in the calculation model and to give details in the drawings. Your bearing coefficient seems to be a little high, under normal conditions, the calculation is as follows: Bearing coefficient = 40*Fs*qt = 40*1.4*27.2 = 1523.2 tf/m³ if you can use it in this way, your base pressures will change a lot. Best regards.
 
Re: FLOOR SAFETY STRESS NEGATIVE
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
What kind of a way can be followed to reduce it and how can the excess reinforcement in the columns in the lower floors (compared to the upper floor) be balanced?
 
Re: GROUND SECURITY STRESSING IS NEGATIVE Hello, I examined what can be done in this project when you put it in the form. There is excess ground stress on the A axis. For this, I tried putting columns between AB axes along all floors and I could not reduce the stress. 1. SUGGESTION I see windows on the front and right of the building. As far as I understand, these are not adjacent orders, it seems to me that you can console them on a raft basis. Whoever determines this issue, go and talk, if you convince them to do some console output, I think the problem will be solved. 2. RECOMMENDATION Geological Eng. It may lift your view up a bit. (If the Moving Loads in the Rooms are taken as 0.200 t/m2, the Maximum floor pressure decreases to 27.1 t/m2, and if it changes what it gives as qt=24.0 t/m2 to qt=27.5 t/m2, it saves you.) Ünver ÖZCAN
 
First of all, thanks for your review and ideas. I also experimented in the same way. Since I don't have many options for colonnade, I wanted to get an idea of what else can be done or if there is a way that I can't think of. Unfortunately, we can't go there. Geotechnically, this place is normally around qt=10 t/m2, and we have taken it as qt=22 as a preliminary proposal, but in this case, we can save it with min qt=27.5. With the value of 22, it solves with 65 columns. For 27.5, it goes up to about 100 columns. I wanted to get some ideas on whether we could reduce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top