How to fix user-generated analytics errors

M

musamusa

New Member
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS M : B: WE HAVE SUPERIOR INFORMATION ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS, I WOULD LOVE IF YOU PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION. BMH: AS(-): Can you explain in detail how to fix errors such as insecurity against slippage? ALSO, AFTER DS SECTION ANALYSIS, THERE IS X MARK IS THIS A FAULT? WHAT WE NEED TO DO In order to get rid of the b error in the column-beam junction area in the idestatistic, it is recommended to reduce the short side section or offset. If misalignment is made, won't the column protrude outward and create an ugly appearance? Also, when the part of the beam sits on the column, that is, when it is caught from the bottom or top of the right instead of the upper left or lower side, and fully seated, that is, when the 25 by 50 column is seated by intersecting it 0 cm, instead of sitting by covering the entire 50 cm length. b errors often go away. that is, when you fit the beam by intersecting the column with the complete beam... what's the logic of snapping the beam from any part of the column, in idecad ??? I would be glad if you help me sometimes B BM BMH E LINE. What is the meaning of these? BEST REGARDS
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS M: It is the error of exceeding the maximum margin, the relevant element was forced too much and more reinforcement was required. B: It means that the control of the column-beam junction area of the earthquake regulation could not be achieved. K: The cutting safety is not ensured, the element is receiving too much cutting force. S: Deflection safety not ensured N: Maximum allowable normal force limit exceeded Ç: Crack limit exceeded ab : Dep. Direction. 3.4.3.1 condition could not be met in the relevant element Br : Torsion limit exceeded Z : Stapling safety could not be ensured Zg : Soil safety stress exceeded Min : TS500 Minimum floor thickness condition could not be met AS(-) : The program could not select the required reinforcement with the given parameters (See more in the section Allowed reinforcement of the program. large diameter can be chosen). As a general solution for M,K,S,N,Ç,Br,Min,As(-) errors that occur in your project, you can enlarge the section of the relevant element. For others, you generally need to either enlarge the section or make adjustments to your system to eliminate the situation. I don't understand what you mean by completely intersecting the beam with the column, but if the column beam geometry is the same, it doesn't matter where you capture the column. The DS part should not be marked after analysis. The meaning of that part is "reinforcement fixing", if you check that box, the program will not choose the reinforcement for the relevant element from that moment on, it will only check whether the reinforcements you give are valid and whether they comply with the requirements of the reinforced concrete and regulations. If you change the reinforcement in an element, the DS part becomes automatically marked so that the reinforcement you changed is not lost in re-analysis, you may be confusing it with it.
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS First of all, thank you very much, you can be sure that the information you have provided is very useful. For example, let's assume that the beam (25 e 50) and the beam (25 e 80) are placed on the column (it doesn't matter if the column is in a horizontal position (let's say from left to right), it doesn't matter if it is upright) we have a chance to catch it from the left head of the column, so it seems like the column and the beam are tangent. If we catch it from the right side of the junction (with advanced capture), it is as if the column and beam intersect. So we can use 2 ways of capturing: it can be captured from the nodal point in the upper left corner, or we can capture the upper right point with advanced capture.) You said that if the cross-sections are the same, it doesn't matter where you catch them. I think you meant as long as the narrow side of the column is not smaller than the beam. (I SHOULD SAY YOU WANTED TO SAY IF YOU CANNOT BRING A 30-PIECE BEAM TO 25 COLUMN AND CONNECT TO THE COLUMN.) THESE B ERRORS OCCUR (COLUMN-BEAM JOINT UNSAFE) ESPECIALLY IN THIS COLUMN 4, COLUMN 2 IF IT IS FIXED, I CORRECT THESE ERRORS (ERROR B) BY REPLACING THE JOINT PLACE WITH ADVANCED CAPTURE AND THEN CALLING REINFORCED CONCRETE. IS THIS SUITABLE? SHOULD I RE-ANALYZE AFTER FIXING? BECAUSE WHEN I ANALYZE AGAIN, B ERRORS AGAIN AGAIN IN 5-6 COLUMNS AGAINST THE B ERRORS AGAIN, THE VIRTUAL CYCLE CONTINUES. I CORRECT IT IN REINFORCED CONCRETE ANALYSIS GIVES THE SAME ERROR AGAIN. THIS IS THE MAINLY I WANT TO ASK.., I mean, IS IT AGAINST ANALYSIS AFTER MAKING CORRECTIONS IN REINFORCED CONCRETE? I HOPE I DON'T GIVE YOU A HEAD REGARDLESS THANKS
 
Re: HOW TO FIX ANALYSIS ERRORS First of all, which version are you using? In general, it would be best to have a final analysis of your project. The "reinforced concrete" button in the reinforced concrete dialogs only performs some very limited calculations for the relevant column (such as reinforcement calculation and selection, strong column control, joint zone control). So the error may seem to disappear, but it may come back after all the analysis and after all the checks and the system solution again, this is normal. In fact, the last thing to do is to have a whole system analysis. In addition, in the latest version (6.0050, which is currently in beta testing), when the reinforced concrete button is used in order to minimize inconsistencies in this sense, an arrangement is made to perform as much control as possible (almost all reinforced concrete operations and earthquake code controls) on the whole system. we did. However, although this new feature will speed up the work, unfortunately it does not eliminate the need for a final analysis (F9), it would be best to completely reinstall the system, especially in case of serious size changes.
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS IS IT CORRECT AS I UNDERSTAND, SO THERE IS NO REMEDY OTHER THAN TO INCREASE THE SECTION? I'M WORKING ON DEMO VERSION 5.511 FOR NOW. I'M THINKING TO BUY THE LICENSED PROGRAM, I WAITING FOR VERSION 6. I'M NEW TO THE PROGRAM. B ERRORS ARE GOING TO OUR TROUBLE OF course I SHOULD THEY HAVE A SOLUTION OTHER THAN 1-INCREASE IN A COLUMN OR BEAM OR 2-GIVING OVERLOAD TO THE BEAM? 3- THEY TALK ABOUT REINFORCEMENT REDUCTION, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL HAPPEN, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS FROM ADVANCED CATCHING BY ANYONE WHEN CONNECTING A BEAM TO THE COLUMN AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LEFT FROM THE LEFT FROM THE APPROACH. ?
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS When connecting a vertical beam to a column, catching from the top left of the column, connecting with the help of an axle in the middle, catching from the top right makes a difference. Of course, your system is different every time. But when connecting a horizontal beam to a column, the program takes into account the clear span of the beam. As you wrote about the column beam joint shear safety, you can increase the column size, play with the offsets to increase the bj (see related article-3.5.2 of the earthquake code), or reduce the beam reinforcements by having a joint design on the beam supports. (Parameters As1 and As2 in Equation 3.11). However, there is not much opportunity to play with beam reinforcements, and what can be done practically is usually limited to the first two methods. When the v6 demo is released, if you share the sample file of a situation where you have this type of problem, we can help you more clearly.
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS I guess you mean vertical beam, right? I can't send my project for now because it didn't record in the demo version... I somehow got rid of these b errors by turning the column or sitting it in the middle, but in the column-beam shearing safety report, I see that about 80-90% of my columns are not surrounded. There is no condition that it will be surrounded by earthquake regulations. as far as i know, but it still doesn't fit in the person, is there a way to get rid of it? so how can we make it besieged? Also, you said "you can reduce the beam reinforcements by having a joint design on the beam supports". how about co-design? Didn't you say that there is no such chance because it is a feature that is not available in idecad, or do you recommend it? THANKS
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS I'm talking about vertical and horizontal beams in the plan. Not all of your combinations need to be besieged, and it's impossible to do anyway. I recommend you to review the relevant article of the regulation (clause 3.5) (a) In case the beams join the column from all four sides and the width of each beam is not less than 3/4 of the joining column width, the column-beam joint will be defined as a confined joint. (b) Any combination that does not meet the above conditions will be defined as an unenclosed combination. It is enough for your joins to be safe, surrounded or unenclosed only sets the limit value in the join control. (3.5.2.2). Of course, besieged combinations save more easily. By common design, I mean that the mounting reinforcements of the two adjacent beams on the support are common, thus preventing extra beam reinforcement in the beam support. In ideCAD, you have all kinds of chances to play with the beam reinforcements (change the number, diameter, determine whether the support will pass to the other side of the support, use common reinforcement in neighboring beams and cross several beams with one reinforcement bar, etc.). However, in practice, this rarely happens, since the program usually chooses the optimum, the main method of designing the joint is to play with the column misalignments and increase the column size.
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS '' When connecting a vertical beam to a column, catching from the top of the column, connecting with the help of an axle in the middle, catching from the top right makes a difference. Of course, your system is different every time. ''I mean, the sentence above means that the eccentricity of the beam in the column changes every time, or do you mean it's your business, no matter where you connect it? As far as the architecture allows, you say that there is no problem with catching from wherever you want..as far as I understand, "(a) If the beams join the column from all four sides and the width of each beam is not less than 3/4 of the joining column width, the column-beam junction is surrounded. will be defined as a combination. (b) All combinations that do not meet the above conditions will be defined as unenclosed connections.'' I also looked at the regulation, and I think it is not limited to what you stated in article a, that is, when we make a system consisting of 40 by 40 columns and 30 by 50 beams, it can still give an unencircled warning. Could this have anything to do with Ve<=0.6*bj*h*fcd enclosed join Ve<=0.45*bj*h*fcd unenclosed join? so I guess it doesn't just look for the 3/4 condition, is it true? In unconfined columns, does idecad apply at least 60% of the amount of transverse reinforcement for the confinement zone of the lower column for the joint zone? Or does it just give a warning that the column is not surrounded, this is what I want to ask. As you know, this rate is 40% in besieged combinations.
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS, if there are 8 transverse reinforcements in the confinement zone, does it put 8*0.6=4.8=5 transverse reinforcements in the joint zone? or if it is 4, does it put 4*.6=2.4=3 reinforcements?
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS
"musamusa":33uy7knb" said:
i.e. if there are 8 transverse reinforcements in the confinement area, does it put 8*0.6=4.8=5 transverse reinforcements in the junction area? or if there are 4 Does it add 4*.6=2.4=3 reinforcements?
Click to expand...
It applies automatically.
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT ANALYSIS ERRORS
"musamusa":273m44kf" said:
'' ... that is, when we make a system consisting of 40 by 40 columns and 30 by 50 beams, it can still give an unencircled warning. Could it be related to <=0.6*bj*h*fcd confined joint and <=0.45*bj*h*fcd unconfined joint? This is what I want to ask, does it apply at least 60% for the joint area or does it just warn that the column is not surrounded. As you know, this rate is 40% in encircled joints as well.
Click to expand...
It is "joining of beams to the column from four sides". In unconfined joints, the reinforcement area in the joint area cannot be less than the reinforcement area requirement in the tightening zone and 100 mm. This condition is automatically applied in the program. Good work
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT USER-SOURCED ANALYSIS ERRORS IN RAFT FOUNDATION ANALYSIS 1-do the soil safety stress control of the foundations according to the average stress option 2-make negative ground stress control in the foundations 3-use earthquake loadings in the ground safety control in the foundations 1- What is the logic of calculating according to the average stress, why do we calculate according to the average stress while the normal stress is standing, and when we do not use this option, it is difficult to save the foundations. Whatever we do. Is this because the previous versions solve the basics very safely (versions before 6) 2-What is the purpose of doing this check? We are a 3-earthquake country, as it is known, a large area of our country is a 1st and 2nd degree earthquake zone.. In this case, why is this an option? that is, what is the rationale for not using earthquake loadings in soil safety stress control? thanks
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT USER ACCURATED ANALYSIS ERRORS ideCAD program is widely used in Germany and Poland besides Turkey. Calculations are made in these regions without the effects of earthquakes. For this reason, these options are the options placed at the request of our users in this region. It is at the discretion of the user to use or not use these options. Average stress calculation is a scientific approach. If the unit area is chosen to be large in the shells, different effects are calculated in different parts of the same shell element, so that it can move away from the real result. To eliminate this negativity, you should either reduce your shell elements or calculate the average of shell elements. It's up to you.
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT USER-SOURCED ANALYSIS ERRORS
"musamusa":22ikeqgv" said:
IN RADIATE FOUNDATION ANALYSIS 1-do the ground safety stresses of the foundations according to the average stress option 2-make a negative ground tension control in the foundations 3- Use earthquake loadings in soil safety control in foundations option 1-what is the logic of calculating according to average stress, why do we calculate according to average stress when normal stress is stopped, and when we do not use this option, it is difficult to save foundations. Whatever we do. Is this because previous versions solve the foundations very safely(6 pre-versions) 2-What is the purpose of doing this check? 3-We are an earthquake country, as it is known, our country is a large area of 1st and 2nd degree earthquake zone..in this case, why is it an option? In other words, what is the logic of not using earthquake loadings in soil safety stress control? thanks
Click to expand...
Hello, Your 1st question: From soil data It is obtained with individual results, especially in foundation calculations, the value of the soil bearing coefficient, which is important in the 1st degree, can vary greatly according to the soil type. For example, while the bearing coefficient of a soil considered to be in the "clay, semi-hard" class is in the range of Ko=1000 ~ 1500 , it is in the "clay, hard" class. The bearing coefficient of the accepted soil is in the range of K0=1500 ~ 3000 . We, on the other hand, have to accept the ground bearing coefficient (1) as a single value in projects. For example, most of us would accept the average Ko= 2000 for "clay, hard soil class". The larger the base area in the foundation system, the greater the variability of this value. Horizontal coefficients according to soil class: Clay, plastic Ko=500 ~ 1000 Clay, semi-hard Ko=1000 ~ 1500 Clay, hard Ko=1500 ~ 3000 Filled soil Ko=1000 ~ 2000 Sand, loose Ko= 1000 ~ 2000 Sand, medium compact Ko=2000 ~ 5000 Sand, firm Ko=5000 ~ 10000 Sand-gravel, firm Ko=10000 ~ 15000 Solid schist Ko> 50000 Rock Ko>200000 The second point is that the soil will give under structural loads and the shape of the reaction it is not very obvious. The ground may show different behaviors according to the loads coming from the structure and again according to the ground type. Sadık Köseoğlu, in his Fundamentals book(2), divided the deformations that may occur up to the breaking point of the ground into three. Elastic deformation, plastic deformation and compressive deformation. In elastic deformation, the ground is restored when the load is removed. In plastic deformation, it shows negligible deformation when the load is removed. Compressive deformation, on the other hand, is the deformation that occurs when water and air come out of the ground, reducing the void volume and the grains coming closer to each other. More detailed information can be viewed in the relevant book. Now we have to confirm whether the soil stress released as a result of the calculation is less than the maximum soil stress. The deformations that appear at every point of the ground at the base of the building will differ according to the effects of the building. Especially at the bottom of the wall and long columns, due to the sudden increase in moment, much larger deformations may occur in some regions compared to other regions, and due to these deformations, the soil stresses at those points will be higher than the other parts of the foundation. How accurate would it be to retrofit the entire foundation system according to the large ground stress that will arise at these points? At this point, the engineer should be able to find a suitable way out by observing the predicted behavior of the ground. Average stress should be considered as one of the options given to us in this sense. Your 2nd question: The answer to this is again in the 1st answer. Under the structural loads, we have to observe whether the vertical effects lift the foundation, especially in combinations where the earthquake loads are reversed. Although the program places negative springs in the foundation system, the engineer must decide whether to allow such a behavior of the foundation. While the structure collapses at one point, it can rise at another point. While designing the foundation, we enable the program to warn us with this option. We decide whether to make changes to the build system. Your third question: Take this as an opportunity. There is an earthquake in our country. We have to design all our structures according to earthquake conditions. Apart from this, we have to give earthquake-free diathesis as an opportunity. For example, you can do a retrofitting project and earthquake effects may not have been basically taken into account at the time. You may also want to solve it and look at the state of the system. Similarly, the program is also in use abroad. For example, in Libya, the value of A0 is taken as 0.02 and the engineer does not use this option. Good work... (1)- The method to spread the ground bearing coefficient on the ground has been added to the program in version 6.0051. (Winkler) (2)- Sadık Köseoğlu Temelller p:21
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT USER GENERATED ANALYSIS ERRORS THANKS FIRST FOR YOUR ANSWERS 1. IN YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION "Especially in the bottom of the wall and long column, some regions may experience much larger deformations than other regions due to the sudden increase in moment, and this Due to the deformations, the soil stresses at those points will be higher than the other parts of the foundation. How accurate would it be to equip the entire foundation system according to the large ground stress that will emerge at these points?'' You said. I BELIEVE THAT THE SOLUTION METHOD WHERE ADDITIONAL REINFORCEMENTS ARE INSTALLED IN THE REGIONS WITH HIGH STRESSES AND NORMAL REINFORCEMENTS ARE INSTALLED IN THE REGIONS WHERE THE TENSIONS ARE NOT HIGH. ACCOUNT THAT IS TO MEAN STRESS: The ability to be insufficient to STRESSES the MAXIMUM ZONE is ACCOUNT THE POSSIBILITY OF OR AVERAGE STRESS MADE USING ACCOUNT ACCOUNT: REGIONAL where MAXIMUM STRESSES THAT the BASIC ALL PART THE SAME STRESS THERE has LIKE THE ACCOUNTS (EXTREMELY SAFE ACCOUNT) as I understand it is THIS TRUE? IF WE BELIEVE THAT AVERAGE STRESS COULD BE ENOUGH, SHOULD WE USE IT? (1)- The method to spread the ground bearing coefficient on the ground has been added to the program in version 6.0051. (Winkler) THIS METHOD (6.0051 VERSION) IS OPTIMUM STRESS, SO MAXIMUM IN CERTAIN REGIONS, LOWER IN CERTAIN REGIONS, WAS NORMAL IN CERTAIN REGIONS AND ACCORDING TO IT, WAS THE REINFORCEMENT AND DIMENSIONING WAS MADE IN THE TEMPLE? 2- Although the program places negative springs in the foundation system, the engineer must decide whether to allow such a behavior of the foundation. While the structure collapses at one point, it can rise at another point. DO WE CHOOSE THIS OPTION WHEN WE THINK THIS BASIC WOULD ACT IN THIS WAY? OR IS THERE ANY SUCH BEHAVIOR, OR DO WE MARK FOR THE PROGRAM TO DETECT IT? WHAT I WRITE IS FOR LEARNING PURPOSE, IN THE METHOD, I READ IT AGAIN BEFORE SENDING IT TO YOU, IT WAS LIKE I HAVE JUDGED SOME PLACES WHICH IS MISCONCERNED, I WANT TO LEARN I WANT TO LEARN.
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT USER ACCOMPLISHED ANALYSIS ERRORS These options in ideCAD are only for soil safety stresses. The reinforcement calculation is made in a way that takes into account the most unfavorable combination according to the moments resulting from the earthquake +- vertical loads. In ground safety control, these options are available for the user to take initiative in the foundation system. I don't think you should worry too much about this. Some engineers still calculate by dividing the total weight of the superstructure by the raft area, which is not very wrong. It takes a lot of skill to remove negative stress from a raft system. Negative displacements are calculated in all conditions. But if you want it not to bind you while taking the report, tick the option to consider negative stresses. If it is not marked, it may be overlooked. As a result of the solution made with the plate theory resting on the elastic foundation, the bucklings are calculated at the node points. Soil stresses are calculated by multiplying these stresses by the bearing coefficient. Soil tension can jump at only 1 point in 1 m2 area. For example, let's say you chose 25 cm mesh in 1 m2 area, 16 points are formed. If there is a tension of 17 t / m2 at 15 of these 16 points, it can be 35 t / m2 at 1 of them. You examine it in the soil stress distribution and take the initiative and say calculate according to the average soil stress. There are other ways to eliminate these splashes. You can calculate the superstructure and substructure together, or you can define your curtains as shell elements. Or you can define regional arcs in the raft. And you can even make changes to the superstructure. We cannot generalize that the multi-spring added by ideYAPI with its 6 versions will always give the most economical result. Have you just started ideCAD? And did you not study?
 
Re: HOW TO CORRECT USER ACCURATED ANALYSIS ERRORS I think the concepts of soil stress and shell design effects are confused. The check by average stress option is only for checking whether the maximum ground stress is exceeded. (Like basic seating control). For the reinforced concrete calculation, the program always calculates the reinforcement based on the results of the shell (resultant stress-M11-M22) and puts the required reinforcement in the required places. You can examine the areas where the program determines the need for reinforcement other than the reinforcement thrown on the raft, on the raft reinforced concrete screen. (Naturally, these areas occur at the bottom of the column/panel and where there are point-line loads defined on the raft).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top