Hello, The project has been analyzed by selecting the semi-rigid diaphragm option. From the structure tree You can increase the number of modes from the Modal Analysis dialog. Also, the boundaries of the D02 slab on the ground and 1st floor are formed incorrectly in the project. When the slab is placed correctly, vibration mode proficiency control is provided without increasing the number of modes."oyuxel":2e21miwx" said:Hi, I get an error in the report as 'The number of modes included in the dynamic calculation is insufficient'. What can I do to fix it. Good work.
Hello, There is no problem in your project settings. For the columns giving As(-) you can manually intervene in the diameter of the reinforcement for a solution for now. We have added the situation to our notes. Note: In the project, K85 and K24 beams seem not to be connected to the S25 polygon column in Normal floors. We recommend that you enter such polygon columns and other curtains as Panel objects and model them as shells."ahmetozates":3chlrcgb" said:greetings, in our 12-floor project, the program always uses 14 gauge iron for the columns, I wonder if I am doing something wrong with the project settings, the 16 gauge iron is not selected at all, whereas the 14 on the table is selected at 16, I would appreciate it if you could help, I would appreciate if you could help me. There is.
Hello, There is no general problem that the basic results are wrong on the panels. In fact, the panel modeled as acceptance and the beamless raft foundation system are the foundations we especially recommend. are superstructure systems. Add the example, let's examine the problem. Good work..."ahmetozates":2bxvdxoi" said:the reason for choosing this method is that the basic results are wrong on the panels
Since both use the file in the same format The easy way to do this is to open the file with open with command instead of double-clicking it. Right click on the file, choose the open with command, then choose whichever you want to open it with at that moment. Choose it (ideMİMAR or ideSTATİK) I hope it will meet your expectation."aykut_k":25176qjk" said:hi; we are an office that uses both static and architecture. my pc is also statically loaded. when I install the architecture as well, even though it has a static dengue installed, when I try to open a drawn pro, double-clicking it gives a dangil error. but first When I open the ide static and open the project drawn from there, it opens. When I delete the architecture, the problem disappears. How can I overcome this problem when both static and architecture are installed (version 7.014 for both of them)
you defined the elevator bucket from the screen as you stated, but I couldn't make a singular foundation, what is the solution, thank you"HakanŞahin":qrf1pwnx" said:Hello, There is no general problem in the panels that the basic results are wrong. In fact, the panel modeled as acceptance and the beamless raft foundation system are the foundation-superstructure systems we particularly recommend. Add the example, let's examine the problem. Good work..."ahmetozates":qrf1pwnx" said:the reason for choosing this method is that the basic results are wrong in the panels
you have always turned to the basis, a singular foundation will be made in practice thanks anyway"insmuh_gk":3uyhvpef" said:the attached amendment to your project may be the solution. Best regards. I hereby wish all my colleagues all the best in the new year. G.KOSE
Enter the raft plate in the individual foundation dimensions... This will be the most realistic modeling and as a result, you will make a model like the single foundation modeling .Insert the edge of the slab so that it completely encloses the elevator curtain and do not recognize the raft slab. Enter its thickness as much as the thickness of the single foundation. You can make the reinforcement design as top flat and bottom flat. However, it seems that single foundations do not save in terms of ground tension in your project. Good work"ahmetozates":2o4tiguu" said:you have always returned to the foundation, single foundation will be made in the application, thanks anyway
The minimum reinforcement statement in piles indicates that there is no need for reinforcement in the relevant pile."haliltek":1pznncnh" said:Reinforcement cross-sectional areas (As) are not shown in the pile reports. What should I do?
(Area* 0.008)."haliltek":121iwubx" said:For a 40cm half diameter pile, considering the minimum purchase price of 0.008, should my reinforcement area be greater than 40cm2?
German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish