ideCAD Guseli beam

G

gencideci

New Member
Hello. A project has returned from build control. they said draw them as gusel because the beams are long. Guseli beam is not in idecad, I guess I couldn't find it. Anyone know if there is? Can anyone send a guseli beam section in autocad? I can do my job with that cut too...
 
Currently, guseli beams cannot be made in IdeStatik, this is a separate issue. But whether the beam will be gusseted or not is a decision for the engineer who made the project. The controlling authority cannot demand such a thing. Console length etc doesn't change that. The important thing here is whether the beam at the bottom of the column meets the stresses in question. Who can say that I made a straight 60 cm high beam instead of a gusli beam that continues from 40 cm to 60 cm high?
 
"gencideci":2qexyxv7" said:
Hello. A project came back from building inspection. They said to draw a gusseted beam because the beams are long. I think there is no gusseted beam in idecad. I can also do my job with...
Click to expand...
If you can present the documents and data in a clear way with the calculations and interactive data with each other and without leaving any question marks (the legislation can provide what they want with the program's capability or solve it in accordance with the legislation without going beyond the program's capability), I think the control authority will provide you with convenience The control authority can only guide you according to the regulations and program capability. It cannot interfere with your engineering ability. You need to determine well whether what they want from you is a suggestion or regulatory and programmatic conditions. In some cases, if necessary, add academic studies and manual account verifications to the account report. My suggestion to you program You can also add outputs of official idecad answers on ram's forum page. If you are 100% sure that you are right, do not back down. Because by law, it is required to write an official letter about why it does not accept you within 15 days. I hope it helps.
 
Guse is generally objectionable and outdated logic. The larger the cross section in reinforced concrete, the greater the load bearing desire will be. Therefore, since the cross-section of the column joint in guseli beams increases, the load bearing demand in that region will be higher, but it will cause additional difficulties because it has an irregular geometry. It also has a negative image in terms of architectural and aesthetic concerns. Some guseli beams also allow the formation of short columns. I don't know how accurate it is to model the beams, which are rod elements, as gussets. Don't do the best...
 
"siromar":3tka9hwo" said:
Guse is an inconvenient and outdated logic in general. The larger the cross section in reinforced concrete, the greater the demand for load bearing. Therefore, as the cross section increases at the column junction in guseli beams, the demand for load bearing in that region will be higher, but it will be irregular. It will cause additional difficulties because it has a geometry. It also has a negative appearance due to architectural and aesthetic concerns. Some gusseted beams also cause the formation of short columns. I don't know how accurate it would be to model the gusset of beams, which are rod elements. I don't know how accurate it would be. Not to make the most beautiful.. .
Click to expand...
Dear Siromar, Especially in Reinforced Concrete Prefabricated systems, we inevitably have to use a short cantilever (gusset or not) for crane beams. We need to know what we need to pay more attention to in the analysis and calculations of reinforced concrete in cases where there is no alternative and it should be used. Within the limits of engineering acceptance can provide behavior that will stay The probability of a situation that requires us to be afraid is almost negligible. Even if a short colon occurs, we need to take the necessary precautions. In concrete prefabrication, if you examine the I section truss types, guse is not something we should be afraid of. The manufacture of the gusset is very important: bending the irons with the correct boom diameters, placing them in the correct locations, especially the carbon conjugate values of the irons. I will give you an example: In the standard of centrifugal reinforced concrete poles, it briefly states: You make your reinforced concrete calculations and name your pole as a type, or you specify the type according to the test result (peak force, torsion, etc.) of the reinforced concrete pole you produce (even if you have not made calculations). What I want to tell you is the results that matter. No matter what algorithm we use, which software we use, it is whether it can calculate according to the results obtained through experiments. If the program I use can do these and I can create a building system within the limits of the program's capability, I don't think there is anything to be afraid of. If I am going beyond these, the reliability and universal acceptance of my account references is important. The adequacy of my MIND and the acceptance of my CONSCIOUSNESS are important when going beyond the borders.
 
Dear engineer_yildiz Every system can be solved after receiving engineering service. With the right modeling, you can press a vertical carrier to the cantilever beam and model a solid structure on the handle. But the regulation forbids this situation, because the right project will not come out of every hand, even if the right project is done, the right application will not be made. Because of this risk, banning is the best approach. Prefab is another matter. The use of gussets or prestresses - post-stresses in those structures are made by experienced builders. However, this is not the gusli beam in our subject. I do not recommend guseli beam for standard reinforced concrete structures. Neither the designer can design the project, nor the blacksmith can implement it properly. The only correct part is the mold. The mold maker looks really good... What is the measure of the short column issue? Is stirrup tightening across the entire column a solution? Would this be the solution to such a risky and important issue? In my personal opinion, the engineer should always know how to go above the regulations. Good work
 
Siromar, our friend who opened the subject, mentioned the regulation not about the vertical carrier apple sitting on the console, but only about the console beam (guseli console beam). Our comments are about cantilever beam, guseli or not. As TDY mentioned, "Columns are never allowed to be placed on top or end of cantilever beams or gussets formed on lower columns on any floor of the building." explained as. When you apply a rigid connection that transmits moment in prefabrication, when you provide the full diaphragm model, it gives results close to normal reinforced concrete structure behavior. (The end force calculations may differ from the loading assumptions due to limitations). Pre-tensioning and post-tensioning are manually applied external interventions to provide the project calculation values to the system. With the right materials, workmanship and control, you can create gussets suitable for your project. (It is very important to bend and place the iron in accordance with the project. Our Hodja Ugur Ersoy has a commemorative good article about not acting properly.) The precaution of the short column issue: Avoiding as much as possible, if necessary, to calculate and model according to the negativities that will be encountered. "Is stirrup tightening across the entire column a solution? Would this be the solution to such a risky and important issue?" We can use alternative solutions that are permitted to be implemented in our regulations and standards. (TS 500 - 2.2 - STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND SECTION CALCULATIONS - If equations or charts other than those given in the standard are used in the analyzes and section calculations, they should be specified, and the source photocopies used should be submitted in addition to the calculations.) Being able to exceed the engineering regulations is a relative concept. But is the engineer primarily competent? I wish you good work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top