How to pass the 20 m span and above economically

S

sefaaydinn

New Member
take it easy everyone, I have a project with a span of 20 meters and a length of 60 meters. I want to pass only with beam without scissors. I apply the general recommendations in the program with the current sections, but I still could not succeed. I want your opinions on my project. Apart from that, using beams without scissors for 20mt 25mt 30mt openings, general design and sections (economical of course) can be considered appropriate based on the sections in my project. or do i have any silly mistakes. i want to know it
 
Re: 20m and above Hello; 1- Single slip plate connection, gusset joint etc. to your beams connected to the columns on the weak axis. enter a slip combination or select these beams to enter their properties and edit them to be sliding in the freedoms section. 2- Enter offsets of approximately 10 cm from the beginning and end of your lovers so that they do not overlap with other elements. 3- You need to enlarge the sections of your main beams, you can use honeycomb beams for a lighter structure. Good work.
 
Ms. nurgul, my façade hangers, some of my columns, some of my roof beams and floor beams' pmm ratio and deflection limit deficiencies continue in my project. I have a problem, I hope you can help: this and previous projects that I sent to the forum; These are projects that have been implemented in other software approved by the relevant municipalities and administrations. I am trying to learn and accelerate by creating the same sections, the same design, through these projects whose idecad language has been handed down. dominated me. I have the autocad version of the attached project and I am entering the exact sections. The earthquake region, ground values, etc. are the same, but I cannot fix the inadequacies as seen in the project. Maybe you have received a similar user comment. Where do you think there is a problem?
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Hello there; First of all, if we talk about modeling errors; 1- The braces you use on the roof should continue vertically and the frame should be completed so that the Central Braced Frames show correct structural behavior. First you need to edit it. 2- If you want to design composite beams under the floor, you have entered composite flooring, you need to enter these auxiliary beams with the secondary beam command. And the composite flooring trapezoidal sheet direction and the headers of the secondary beams should be perpendicular to each other. 3- You need to correct your geometry by entering a union or make all the elements work from their middle axis so that additional internal force values due to eccentricity do not occur. I edited your model accordingly. 4- In the sections where you use the single purlin command in purlins, your results were not appropriate because the connection with the beams was not formed correctly. As for the comparison issue; You did not provide information about the designed programs or the Regulations. 1- There is a problem of slenderness in your roof diagonals. According to our Steel Structures Regulation, this is not appropriate. The program performs this calculation correctly. Either there is a difference in regulations, the other program is designing incorrectly, or the engineer may have made arrangements on the program himself, these situations should be checked. 2- In order to make a clear comparison, we need the project and adjustments entered in the other program. The set settings of each program may be different, your analysis settings are not just ground or earthquake parameters. Mode coupling, equivalent earthquake load, rigid or semi-rigid diaphragms, inclusion or omission of purlins in the analysis, regulation used for element design, etc. data needs to be looked at. 3-Since you only have dwg s, we can't examine the situations I mentioned above. However, if you can reach the model, we will definitely review it. 4- The most important issue was that your stability beams did not seem to be connected correctly with the main beams, the problem was fixed by entering the cross end joint. *** There are no errors on the issues you have problems with in the project related to the current version. If you are viewing the forum, you may have noticed that if there is an error, it is accepted and immediately corrected. Therefore, it is necessary to correct the modeling errors first. Then we need other program data for comparison. If you wish, you can check the results by transferring the model you created in ideCAD to Sap200. During the transfer, the analysis settings are identical, but you have to make the design adjustments in sap2000. Make sure that the ideCAD and Sap2000 settings are exactly the same. ** If you get used to the logic of the program, your modeling problems will decrease and you will be able to produce projects faster. Therefore, if you wish, you can follow the videos in the link
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
You can register for the training if you wish
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
you can be. Good work.
 
Hi, when we look at the IPE270 roof beams, which are loaded between 5 meters of axles and have a span of 20 meters, from the model, although there is a light coating of a single layer of sheet metal such as 4 kg / m², they seem a little weak if guceler is not applied in the column joints. Then, by defining the same loads, the same system configuration, the same design parameters, and of course, the unsupported lengths and the effective lengths of the bars, which are the most important ones, in SAP2000, very close results are obtained with ideStatik when looking at a no-intermediate frame with the highest load (Attached "sap2000- control.jpg"). The steel material quality used in the project and application may be higher than the S235 selected in ideStatik. As you know, IPE and HEA profiles are now offered to the market in minimum S275 quality. Or, gusset may have been applied to the beams at the junction with the column. These can be controlled. In general, the definition of unsupported lengths and effective lengths of the bars within the design parameters in analysis models can be skipped assuming that this is done automatically in many other analysis software, or it cannot be checked if there are assigned values. If the definition of unsupported sizes and effective sizes is not done correctly in the software, the design results may also be incomplete/wrong. For example: in this model, in the roof beam system, which consists of two bar segments in a frame, each bar must have an unsupported length of approximately "2" in case of major bending, ie twice the length of the bar (distance between the two columns). The user has to check whether this value is assigned for the relevant bar elements in the design parameters or enter it himself, and many software do not do this automatically! In ideStatik Çelik software, this process is performed correctly by the program, almost 99% of the time, which requires user intervention only in very complex beam placement situations. These can be examined in the model entered in the other program. In addition, the total height of the middle floor from the steel top was defined as 15cm (10cm+5cm) and this value may have been made 10cm in total for a simple intermediate floor in practice. The height defined as "Slab Thickness" under geometry in the slab general settings in ideStatik is the thickness of only the continuous slab of the slab. The value you write to this value and the "Tread Depth" value are added to obtain the total floor height over the steel. It should be checked whether these values are defined correctly for the intermediate in the model (Attached "doseme-settings.jpg"). It would be correct to select the "Semi-rigid diaphragm" option in the analysis settings for all steel structures, especially in industrial structures with intermediate or intermediate floors in a certain region (Attached "analysis-settings.jpg"). Best regards
 
Hello there; Thanks for the useful information. The attached model is the edited version of your model. 1- I mentioned that your roof braces should continue vertically in order to ensure the correct operation of the central braced system and the stability of the structure. It was created to set an example for the application. 2- By providing cladding entrance to your façade purlins, it is ensured that they also take wind loads. ideCAD automatically calculates the wind loads according to TS 498 and affects the purlins in case of steel coating entry. Make sure the wind loads in other programs. ** The model will be added as an example for industrial structures in general terms. Cross-section optimization can be achieved by making changes in the carrier system configuration on the project. Good work.
 
Hello, thank you very much for your ideas. It was a subject that constantly puzzled me. What you said was really important to me. I would like to congratulate the idecad family for their sincere answers and sincerity once again. Also, Ms. Nurgul, is there a need to add snow load to the left and right and front and rear coatings? (to facade cladding) was entered in the last project you sent.
 
Hello there; Although the snow load is entered in the pavement, the angle of the pavement with the horizontal is controlled by the program and no load is applied to these belts due to the snow load. When adjustments are made without cladding entry, you can also see snow load on facade claddings, as fixed, moving and snow load adjustments are made and then data entry is made. In the calculations for the analysis, you can see that the snow load on the pavement has no effect due to the direction. Good work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top