German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish Ground safety tension is a nuisance to me on many projects. Since there is no space between the buildings, I have to lay the foundations from scratch. I'm sure everyone has faced this kind of situation. I even tried the rafter raft foundation. I made the foundation concrete C35. I reduced the loads as much as I could. I don't want to use 'Increase ground safety stress by 50%'. What else can I do? I need urgent help!!
GROUND SAFETY TENSION
- Thread starter derya
- Start date
If you add your PROJECT, I think many of our friends will have the opportunity to share their ideas about the appropriate foundation design. If you mean that there is no misalignment between the column and the foundation beam, how can the molder connect the foundation molds in practice? I am in favor of putting at least 15 cm of styrofoam in order to avoid hammering and similar structure interactions, even in adjacent structures. If you do this, you will have already caught a 15 cm offset between the column and the foundation beam in your foundation. In terms of design, you can make a raft without beams and calculate according to the average stress. Because the raft stresses jump in certain regions.
Do you think it is correct to calculate according to the average stress? After all, if there is a stress that the ground cannot handle, isn't it necessary to fix the problem there? One side of the building is adjacent and there are roads on the other three sides. In summary, I can't go out of any column. I tried to rar the project and send it. But it never loaded. If you don't mind, I can send it to your e-mail address.
You can calculate the average stress according to the basic ground condition of the building. The important thing here is to know why the foundation of your building does not save. That is, if it does not recover due to negative stresses, you can either increase your foundation plate as a cantilever or increase the thickness of the foundation plate, on the other hand, I do not understand why you do not want to use the 50% increase in earthquake loadings in TS 500. Here, the arrangement is made according to the assumption that the soil carrier can be increased by 50% in the loadings, given the possibility that there will be no earthquake at any time. I use this option in many buildings that I have solved. my e-mail address is mertdursun@ttmail.com if you send the ground information to my e-mail address, I will try to make arrangements for you.
Sometimes it happens that even if we try all the ways except the average stress, we can't get out of the work. If we don't increase the stretch by 50% anyway, it's like impossible. Municipalities or building inspection companies do not always accept the average stress. As Derya said, ground safety tension is a problem for us. I usually do not save at the edge points, I extend the edge that does not save, this time it does not save another place on the opposite corner of the building. 
In the new version (6.0050), we anticipate that the options for reinforcing the foundation according to the pseudo-cpupled winkler method and the structure-foundation interactive analysis will enable the beamless raft foundations to be designed more optimally, and in this sense, the difficulties encountered will be alleviated.
Bolvadinim
New Member
SOIL SAFETY STRESSING .( Es O Es ).
Nowadays, beamless raft foundations FLOOR SAFETY STRESS is a problem for me. No matter how much I increase it, it doesn't say that it's okay. So in a sense, the program brings to the point of making rafts without beams. We are looking forward to the new version (6.0050). I think it will come with the 6.0050) version.. I can honestly say that the (6.0012) version has disappointed me so far. =#FF0000]( Geometry control, Pushover analysis, missing elements recorded in IFC format) etc[/color] capabilities have been taken away from us in the new version. The lack of a format that can still open our projects for lower versions makes us inefficient and destroys the usability of the ideal structure with lower versions. Lower versions are almost idle when higher versions are released. I think it should not be like this.. I have (3.04 versions) I can't get any files from the new version. A solution must be found. We do not see any exciting innovations in the new version Architecture yet. (İdeRENDER,ideDİO,Library) etc. The possibilities are always the same. Especially İdeRENDER remained mediocre for a long time. needs to be developed. To put it briefly, we expect your work to be a little more effective. Thank you. Abdulkadir DABANLI"Admin":1jsqtqdo" said:
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Re: FLOOR SAFETY STRESSING .( Es O Es ). Hello,
In order to reduce the safety of the floor in mat slabs, it would be beneficial to increase the floor area, not the slab thickness..."Bolvadinim":399y157i" said:
An extensive research for version 6 and priorities were determined accordingly. After all, all jobs contain a multi-cluster. You can see all the work done in the link below."Bolvadinim":399y157i" said:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
5 enterprise usage rights were given with version 6. In short, your lock is running version 5. Version 3 opens/saves its projects in 5 and continues working at 6. You should have received version 5, which works with the 6 lock, together with the 6 package. If not, please inform us." Bolvadinim":399y157i" said:
We are working on the architectural program."Bolvadinim":399y157i" said:
We try to determine the issues that will please you. Evaluating the current performance of version 6 is of course at your discretion. We ask you to review 181 items. Thank you for your interest and support..."Bolvadinim":399y157i" said:
Bolvadinim
New Member
Mr. Hakan, the floor area of my building carries the limits of my building to a 75 cm plot. It is not possible to increase the floor area in adjacent constructions without a garden. It is not economically viable to increase the thickness anyway."HakanŞahin":1nw1uuk6" said:
I know the situation you describe is possible depending on your point of view.What I mean is the opposite situation, that is, opening new version files with old versions.[/ u]. It contains this opportunity in many programs. For example, it provides the opportunity to record files belonging to AutoCAD sub-versions. It is also valid for similar Office programs. If this opportunity were possible, we would be able to share our new version files with offices working with sub-versions. I can't send the project I made in version 6 to the office with version 5. Because it can't open it, it can't examine the project.. What if our programs are already licensed, locked and contain a file structure that can recognize each other? I hope I was able to explain my problem.."HakanŞahin":1nw1uuk6" said:
I follow your web page constantly, I try to stop by your fair stands as much as I can. I am one of your users who has been following you carefully (for about 13 years). I was very excited when you switched from 3.04 to 4.01. I am one of the ones who explained the programs the most in my region and made them multiply. The reason was that when we went to Imo for a project visa, the programs were not well known in our environment and because there were no users, our solutions and projects were looked at coldly. Besides, it is right to give the name that dominates the other market here. is not The analysis and drawing program I was thinking of (....CAD) was recommended to us. We broke that view a little bit in our region.. While we are supporting you like this, your 181-item innovations are of course things that should be and are late. You have some shortcomings compared to the programs that are your alternatives in the market. After all these years, please do not refer us to different programs.. We expect ideYAPI to attack a little faster. When will version 6.0050 be released? Thank you.."Bolvadinim":1nw1uuk6" said:
HEAVY A CRITICISM wondering 'WRITING REQUIREMENT DUYDUM.13 YEARS FOLLOW WHEN THIS PROGRAM ACABA CHANGE to the NEW YOU WANT to İSTEDİĞİNİZ.YAPIL ERRORS THING you THINK NEED TO BE YACHT İDECAD to AKTARDINIZM the ACABA.ÇÜNK I HAVE BEN 3 YEARS IDE (HIM BEFORE needle WELL ACCIDENT we're MEK) EVER ERROR aS OR tO ME bY BETTER WILL tHINK I THINGS AND ALWAYS PROVISION fOR the I HESITATE tO WRITE BEST WAY tO LOWER DİYENE DÜŞÜNÜYORUM.AYRI by tHAT LADDER tO US OURSELVES's draw CALLED been GIVE AN oPPORTUNITIES OR VERY GÜZEL.İLK ladder resistance ÇİZER I AND MANY GREAT PLEASURE ALDIM.ÇÜNK I DO with fACILITIES bY yOU yOUR ŞAKRABANLIK in KALMIYORDU.GEREK SITUATION 3 MANY DIFFERENT staircase could CREATE a DIFFERENT sTAIRS BUT THIS EAR AWAY GÖSTERMEKTİ.Şİ was VERY PLEASANT ... I THINK you REMOVE the STEEL ROOF program on you DEVELOPS HELESI iT in KANITLAYACAKSINIZ.GELİŞECEKSİNİZ.ÇÜNK WE YANINIZDAYIZ.ÇÜNK the US LISTENING AND VALUES VERİYORSUNUZ.ÇÜNK yOU ÜRETİYORS of WE ARE USING NUZ. I THINK YOU ARE SUPER...
If you have made the foundation calculations according to the g+q+e loading, what is the harm in increasing the soil safety stress by 50%. After all, earthquake regulations allow this. It is difficult to solve this problem in adjacent structures. Increasing the foundation height does not always yield results. Using the average stress option is also It is not suitable. There is a problem in the region where the stress is exceeded.
I wanted to share my thoughts as someone who bought a few programs and threw them away, since there is a subject such as comparing the programs here. Friends, I bought another program about 15 years ago and used it for 5 years. When I was overwhelmed by the problems of the program in question, I studied ideYapı and it was about 5 years ahead of the program I was using. Since architectural and static projects are carried out in my office, it is unique in terms of integration. Recently, I had the opportunity to examine the latest version of the program I used, and I saw that the innovations in the new version were already 4-5 years in the ide, so it was still 5 years ahead. Since I supervised the project in the room, there is nothing special about reporting. Are there any shortcomings, of course. If the deficiencies of a software are gone, it means that it is time to throw it away and release a new version. In computer programming, neither demands nor development ends. Frankly, I find the program successful and the authorities interested.
First of all, as a former user of the IDE YAPI program. I would like to say a few words too. I met ide build with version 3.04. I've been using it nonstop until now. The thing I like most is its technical support. If we can use the relevant fast adjectives (in market conditions) for technical support of a software. This feature has priority in the preference of that software. It is my second favorite part of this software. To be able to give appropriate calculation and drawing output and layout under market conditions. When you compare it with other software (some software still uses alphabetic characters to create the frame instead of drawing the frame in the report output ), you will see that the build is successful. Not to mention the ease of use of the software. Of course there are problems. This type of software develops with its users. The previous version (from 5.01 to 5.14) has gone a long way. most recently, we were able to solve our projects with 5.14 without any problems. I am very hopeful for this version of Idestruct. I think this version is a transitional version. I hope that, unlike its predecessors and its competitors, it has an infrastructure that can solve steel and reinforced concrete building systems together, and if this is developed, it will come to a better place both in academic circles and in market conditions.
I met ide build with version 3.04. I've been using it nonstop until now. The thing I like most is its technical support. If we can use the relevant fast adjectives (in market conditions) for technical support of a software. This feature has priority in the preference of that software. It is my second favorite part of this software. To be able to give appropriate calculation and drawing output and layout under market conditions. When you compare it with other software (some software still uses alphabetic characters to create the frame instead of drawing the frame in the report output ), you will see that the build is successful. Not to mention the ease of use of the software. Of course there are problems. This type of software develops with its users. The previous version (from 5.01 to 5.14) has gone a long way. most recently, we were able to solve our projects with 5.14 without any problems. I am very hopeful for this version of Idestruct. I think this version is a transitional version. I hope that, unlike its predecessors and its competitors, it has an infrastructure that can solve steel and reinforced concrete building systems together, and if this is developed, it will come to a better place both in academic circles and in market conditions.saridurmus
New Member
Friends, we need to praise, but let's not overdo it. friends who control the project before us; These can be a chamber, municipality or any public institution. those people want to check with the program they know, rightly this does not mean that our program is missing. so let's write the features you want to have so that the friends in R&D can set targets in front of them.
I would be happy if you could be more descriptive about the overdose in criticism and praise (I'm not asking to create polemics). The statement, praise and criticism that I have made on my own behalf. It is entirely due to the events I have experienced with this software. Best Regards.