Interpretation of the Superstructure Interactive Solution Option

R

Rodya

New Member
Salam aleykum, dear forum administrators, my dear colleagues, and hello to you my dear brothers and sisters; C25 - B420C; Ss=0.921, S1=0.273, XO, YZS=ZD, BKS=3, I=1.0, BYS=7, DTS=1, Ta=0.11, Tb=0.54, RX=5.6, RY=5.6, DX=2.5, I completed the preliminary design of the static solution of a reinforced concrete structure consisting of B+Z+1 normal storey with DY=2.5 parameters. I sent the final design 2D project output and Idecad 10.17 project file to the building inspection company. After the project was reviewed, I was verbally warned by the building inspection company that the superstructure interactive solution tab in the analysis options in the Analysis ----> Analysis Settings ----> Foundation - Soil tab could not be used in the current construction. Since I found these or similar options to be at the initiative of the project author and also to be taken in these ground parameters, there were no restrictions or obstacles in 2018 TBDY and I found it healthier for the system in terms of statics, I made my analysis by enabling this option. I encountered such a situation for the first time in this building inspection firm. Please share all the more correct and rational answers and your experiences under this heading. I will use this title to support my argument. I share the screenshot of the analysis option, the screenshot of the IdeCad information text and the screenshot of the relevant article in the TBDY 2018 structure-ground interaction title.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Here it says in a nutshell: If you are willing to have larger cross-section effects, you can calculate without calculating the soil-structure interaction. Therefore, the ground-structure interaction affects the structure positively and this calculation is more accurate than the non-interactive calculation. Because while you are making non-interactive calculations, you accept the columns and curtains as built-in. However, your columns and curtains are basically never built-in. This causes the superstructure to be calculated incorrectly. In short, always choose the pavement interactive solution, whatever your ground condition.
 
To be frank, I thought at first that the rotations on the ground would make the structure a little more comfortable and give more economic results. I was surprised to see this article in the regulation. I talked to one of our brothers in the municipality, who was looking at the project, and I wrote it here, and then I realized that the non-interactive solution did not make much sense. The regulation does not say that you will do so, there is no certainty, there is no advice. Finally, how did our colleagues in the related building inspection interpret it as an engineer? Did they read the direct ordinance? If an engineering product is to be produced, I think it should be discussed with each other. take it easy, good work.
 
This article has nothing to discuss. One of the rare definite articles in the regulation. There are two kinds of expressions in the 2018 regulation. First All Expression; The ones that end in the form of "must be done" A1 In the calculation of torsional irregularity, the statement "It will definitely be done according to 4.7 g" The same statement for B2 is the second type of statement, "To be done" Expressions that give permission to the user, but that the results will be negative. As in the article below, it says that this article reduces equivalent earthquake loads. According to this article, even if you make the earthquake calculation with equivalent earthquake loads. The regulation does not tell you not to take the superstructure interaction in the equivalent earthquake load calculation. Moreover, if you are calculating with modal calculation methods, this item does not bind you to the user. It also says Negligible here. Engineering has this concept. However, when you neglect, you do not take into account the contribution of the situation you neglect. According to this article, the user can choose such an account if he/she wishes. However, if the controlling authority does not want it, it will be against the regulation. Regulations are legal sanctions that come right after the Constitution and Laws. It connects both the engineer and the supervisor. This article is indisputable as to what the regulation meant. It is very clear. According to this article, the user can make a non-interactive solution if he/she wishes. This is also indisputable. Based on this clause, the controller cannot force the user to a non-interactive solution. This is also indisputable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top