German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish Hello, I've seen some really surprising results of 10.59 in some projects I've done. 10.20 seemed more stable. Also, when I analyzed a project that I had previously solved with 10.20 and prepared for drawing with 10.59, I encountered nearly 150 errors. Most importantly, while my current system was fine with 10.20, at 10.59 I received a warning of relative floor drift on all floors and insufficient reinforcement on all vertical carriers, this cannot be a normal thing. if the results change like this when an update is made, all the projects we made with the previous version become crippled. I was wondering if anyone else is experiencing this or is it just me? good work
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I updated to 10.59 and got some surprising results
- Thread starter M.sa
- Start date
mustafaureyen
New Member
Re: 10.59 update we experienced the same situation with many engineer friends, I am of the same opinion........
emrahgokdemir
Member
Re: 10.59 update I analyzed the analysis results of 10.58 and 10.59 versions in 2 different projects. As a result, I got the analysis I made at 10.58 almost exactly in version 10.59. As you mentioned, I didn't get different values, errors etc. In my trials in 2 different projects, I did not get any new errors in the project, and I could not see the slightest difference in the relative floor offsets and dynamic analysis. You can see the values I got at 10.58 and 10.59 separately from the screenshots. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ RELATIVE FLOOR DIFFERENCE COMPARISON: -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- I believe that the situation you are experiencing is either caused by a modeling error, or that too many values in your model are at the limit. I think it's because. That is, minor analysis result differences are normal in new versions, because in new versions, improvements are made in analysis. However, these changes are not large enough to cause 150 errors in your projects (Such a change is only possible by jumping from 8 versions to 10 versions). However, if your relative storey drifts have recovered close to the limit, the analysis in the 10.59 version may change one click and exceed the limit, which will appear as an error. Likewise, your nbi coefficient is well below 1.2, and in the new analysis it rises one click above 1.2. This situation can have a substantial impact on your earthquake calculations. Your beam reinforcements are locked and there are reinforcements very close to the limit, one click exceeds the limit in the new analysis and this may appear as an error. Except for these cases, you may have made a modeling error. While the 10.58 version evaluates the modeling error in the analysis differently, the 10.59 version evaluates it differently, which may lead to different results. If all this is wrong, the ide may have a bug. In this case, if you take the time to add your projects here, idecad officials will definitely examine the situation. But after your comments, I was torn between installing 10.59 or not. I installed it and tried it in 2 different projects. I can say that I did not experience the slightest difference in analysis. Also, the ctb export error that I reported to idecad before has been fixed in this version. I tested this too. I would like to thank IDE officials for solving this problem so quickly and releasing the new update without delay. Best wishes, Best regards. CONSTRUCTION ENG.EMRAH GOKDEMIR
emrahgokdemir
Member
Re: update 10.59 I just want to add that. When the beam reinforcements were locked in the model prepared in version 10.58, when the analysis was performed in version 10.59, I got an error in 5 beams. All of the beams I got error were due to missing beam span sub-reinforcement area. The new version may cause minor changes in the beam sub-reinforcements. However, I still think that this difference is not a difference that "could make old projects crippled" as you mentioned. I wish you good work.
Ismail Hakki Besler
Administrator
Re: update 10.59
Add the projects you mentioned as v10.20 and let's examine it."M.sa":kx0xp0wd" said:Hi, I saw some really surprising results of 10.59 in some projects I did. 10.20 seemed more stable. Also, I solved with 10.20 and prepared for drawing. When I analyzed a project with 10.59, I encountered about 150 errors, most importantly, my current system was fine with 10.20, but at 10.59 I got a warning of relative floor drift on all floors and insufficient reinforcement on all vertical carriers. This cannot be a normal thing. all projects are getting crippled. I was wondering if anyone else is experiencing this or is it just me. good work
Ismail Hakki Besler
Administrator
Re: 10.59 update
v10. Please add it as 20. Let's examine it. If there is a problem, let's investigate the cause of the problem and fix the problem."mustafaureyen":1cbw2a30" said:we experienced the same situation with many engineer friends, I agree.........
nurgulkaya
New Member
Re: I updated to 10.59 and got some amazing results Hello; Add the data of your project where you put the printer images here. Let us examine your project and give you detailed information. If you do not want to share your project on the forum, you can send it via the portal or send it to me directly from the forum messages section. If a difference is detected between versions after reviewing, it is definitely reported to R&D and fixed.
Re: I updated to 10.59 and got some surprising results When I upgraded from 10.20 to 10.59, I got very different results too. Numerous Columns, beams and curtain reinforcements have been changed. Moreover, there was no rescue situation at the border. Most importantly, I exceeded the limit in one of my elements, while I was quite good at relative translation. Could you please share the reason for the different results and the solution you found to this question?
Ismail Hakki Besler
Administrator
Re: I updated to 10.59 and got some surprising results
This situation does not occur in every project. Therefore, generalization for the solution It is necessary to examine on a project basis and develop a solution. Therefore, if you add the project in which this situation occurs, we can prevent this situation from occurring for that project as well."ganymede":1ggtbbp5" said:I got very different results when I upgraded from 10.20 to 10.59. Lots of Column, beam and shear reinforcements changed "Moreover, there was no recovery situation at the border. Most importantly, I was quite good at relative translation, but I crossed the limit in one of my employees. Could you please share the reason for the different results and the solution you found to this question?
Re: I updated to 10.59 and got some surprising results I am posting the link of the sample project. The model is solved without error in version 10.20. When analyzing at 10.59, the relative translation of column SZ9 increases from 0.0056 to 0.0082. Which one is correct?
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Ismail Hakki Besler
Administrator
Re: I've updated to 10.59 and got some surprising results 1) Whatever your system, v10.59 results are valid and correct and safe in any case. 2) If our system is made as cassette flooring (as in your project), V10.59 Results are much more accurate. Use v10.59. The 2018 Earthquake Code did not impose any extra special sanctions for cassette systems and systems containing many simple beams. Although there is no such sanction, we have reviewed user projects "CONTAINING CASSETTE AND/OR MULTIPLE BEAMS" as Nonlinear and used a different algorithm from v10.20 for these systems (Cassette and Multi-beam systems). For cassette systems in v10.20, the calculation method developed for v10.59 is not used. It is also not mandatory to use in accordance with the 2018 regulation. But definitely use v10.59 for cassette systems. From this point of view, if you do not want to take into account the issues that are not clearly stated in the 2018 Earthquake Code and that we have added to v10.59, you can use v10.20.
Re: I updated to 10.59 and got some surprising results Make no mistake, the project I shared the results of is not the cassette tiling system. A project that has been solved as a beamed slab and modeled with 1% of the building floor area in both directions. I don't know what kind of algorithm you added, but there are serious differences in the relative floor offsets. I think you can analyze and experience this in a curtain beam model without waiting for us to send you a project, but if not, we can share the model via the portal.
Ismail Hakki Besler
Administrator
Re: I updated to 10.59 and got some surprising results
"M.sa":1mwdbe5m" said:Don't get me wrong, my project is not cassette flooring system. a project modeled with a wall up to 1% of the building floor area. I don't know how you added an algorithm, but there are serious differences in the relative storey drifts. I think you can analyze and experience this in a model with sheared beams without waiting for us to send you a project, but if not, we can share the model via the portal[ /quote] It doesn't have to be cassettes or ribs. If the building has simple beams or gallery floors with very large spaces, it will affect those types of structures as well. If you share the project like our other colleague in order not to speak afaki, I will comment. I would say this without looking at the project. If it is a project that you are solving with a semi-rigid diaphragm model, the results of v10.59 are valid in any case. FEA (Semi-rigid diaphragm system) of floors, curtains and docket of the whole structure is created automatically by the program. For this creation process in each version, we make use of the sample projects that come to us in any structure made by the users. Users can create systems for this creation that we could never have foreseen, and we are constantly improving and updating this mesh creation process for each project. If there are no simple beams in the system, the results do not change between v10.20 and v10.59. If there are simple beams in the system, that is, even one simple beam that does not form a frame, very small results are noticeable. As the number of non-frame beams increases, the differences begin to increase. Again, there are differences in cassette and rib systems. If there are no simple beams in your structure and this difference occurs, it is necessary to examine it separately. In this case, we expect no difference. From v10.20 to v10.59 . That's the change we're making. Also, nonlinear solution options have been added. These things have nothing to do with the nonlinner solution. Please share via portal.
Re: I updated to 10.59 and got some amazing results
Thank you."Ismail Hakki Feeds":3qwdp6wd" said:1) The results of v10.59 are valid and correct and safe no matter what your system is. 2) If If our system is made as cassette flooring (as in your project), V10.59 Results are much more accurate. Use v10.59. 2018 Earthquake Code does not impose any extra special sanctions for cassette systems and systems containing many simple beams. However, we reviewed user projects "CONTAINING CASSETTE AND/OR MULTIPLE SIMPLE BEAMS" as Nonlinear and used a different algorithm from v10.20 for these systems (Cassette and Systems with Multiple Simple Beams). In v10.20 v10 for cassette systems. The calculation method developed for 59 is not used. It is not mandatory to use it as per the 2018 regulation. However, definitely use v10.59 for cassette systems. From this point of view, it is not explicitly stated in the 2018 Earthquake Regulations If you don't want to consider the issues we added to 0.59, you can use v10.20.
Ismail Hakki Besler
Administrator
Re: I updated 10.59 and got some surprising results
As I guessed, there is another situation in the project you sent. I directed this situation to R&D. Friends are looking at the situation here. Thank you"M.sa":1ckfjdc0" said:I shared the data on the portal, Mr. Ismail, and I'm waiting for your feedback after reviewing it.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Re: I updated 10.59 and got some surprising results
Hello, Your project that you shared on the portal has been answered. The results of the current version Ver 10.59 are much more accurate. Good work"M.sa":3enrmhic" said:I shared the data on the portal, Mr. Ismail, I am waiting for your feedback after reviewing it.