I couldn't solve the relative floor offset and shear section

Re: RELATIVE FLOOR DIFFERENCE AND SCREEN PROBLEM * In one of the floors, the clear floor height is 140 cm, is it correct? (Take a cross-section, or look at the 3D screen) All columns may have remained above, possible beam and floor levels may have remained the same, and data entry may have continued. * Rigid basement marking is insufficient, when looking at the project, the 1st and 2nd basements seem rigid. * You can apply live load reduction coefficient. * T- and L-shaped S27 column has overlapping error, 1-2 cm height difference can be seen on some floors. * Of course, the time will be shorter if you divide and solve the dilatations separately. Since you will be working separately while you are already working, you do not have to deal with large and unnecessary layouts in the field. In this way, the detail sheets are also more understandable and easily accessible. * If you take the cassette continuities from the Beams, if this is not very convenient, from any axis at the bottom (or top) and the far right (or left) of the sheet, you will not encounter continuity problems, and a cassette square with different widths will not occur inside the slab. * I think that the placement and continuity of beams should be corrected in some large spans (eg: between the columns and console of the 2nd basement s2-s14). some beams are also very delicate, like K144, 145 etc. I think it would be a much better choice to increase the heights by a few cm instead of making excessively wide beams. It seems that the program has already reported a lot of bugs about beam widths. * You should increase the cassette tooth widths. * In the area surrounded by curtains on all sides (14.xm diameter area?), beam placement can be more systematic. * Did you visualize the reinforcement placement at the nodal point, which consists of 6 beams that you created in the middle of the circular area in the first basement? * Input data using screen-sized columns as panel objects. * Where is the ground floor k77 connected, why didn't you close the d70, d29 floor with beams? ect... N. YILMAZ
 
Re: RELATIVE FLOOR SHIFT AND CURTAIN PROBLEM Hello, -The analysis time took 58 minutes. This is because you solved it as a semi-rigid diaphragm. If you solve the model as a rigid diaphragm, the analysis time takes 9 minutes. The reason is that the finite element model created by dividing the floors into shell elements, beams, columns, ribs, shears, foundation beams and raft foundations together with the structure is included in the global stiffness matrix and static and dynamic analysis is done. In the model, the floor masses are considered as distributed masses along the floor. Since you are solving a cassette-floored system, it is correct to analyze it as a semi-rigid diaphragm. Also, the floor area of your model is large. . -S18 and S21 columns are defined as polygons. You must define them as curtains. -P28 and P29 curtains are divided into two from the 2nd floor and enter as one piece. -2nd. You must turn the large gaps you have opened in the building on the upper right side of the floor with beams, this can also solve the relative floor drift problem. Otherwise, you should increase the rigidity of the floor. -Many of your beams do not recover from column beam shear safety. I recommend that you review the attached document. -There is no definition of rigid floor in basement floors. -There are misalignments in the polygon columns you entered, you need to correct them. -You did not define the soil load in the basement floors, I suggest you do it. You can examine the document I will share in the attachment. -I suggest you put a column under the pool deck in the circular area that I think is designed as a pool. At the same time, you should also affect the water load on the pool curtains horizontally. -Finally, review your model by taking into account the errors and warnings that appear in the geometry control and what I and Mr. Nedim said.
 
Re: RELATIVE FLOOR SHIFT AND SCREEN PROBLEM 1.) I could not figure out the reason for the small curtain error that continues on all floors. 2.) The movable load reduction coefficient appears as 0.3 in the floor setting tab. If we do not calculate automatically according to the value there, where do we change it? 3.) If we solve it with dilatation; - Where there is dilatation, there is no curtain where there is dilatation, but can we accept basement floors as rigid? -How do we activate the temesh effects where there is dilatation. (For example: If we solve the left and right of the dilatation separately, how can we effect the left and right main effects on the right.) 4.) We should consider that it gives 1/7 otran error for the small fret pieces remaining in the corner in angular frets. 5.) Can the lack of reinforcement in the raft slab be solved by increasing the diameter of the reinforcement? Thanks in advance.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Re: RELATIVE FLOOR DIFFERENCE AND SCREEN PROBLEM
"mustafadisci":1os8kkcz" said:
2.) Moving load reduction coefficient appears as 0.3 in the floor adjustment tab.
Click to expand...
Live load participation coefficient and live load reduction coefficients are different concepts. The live load participation coefficient you mentioned. You can change the live load reduction coefficient. - Where there is dilatation, there is no curtain where there is dilatation, but can we accept basement floors as rigid? [/quote] You may need to make different rigid assumptions in different blocks. In this case, you also need to separate the models.
"mustafadisci":1os8kkcz" said:
4.) It gives 1/7 otran error for small curtain pieces in the corner in angular curtains.
Click to expand...
You can model the short arm of the L curtain as a column and the long part as a curtain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top