German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish HakanŞahin
Administrator
We don't have such a problem from the demo. Let us know if you have the same problem in other projects. Good work ..."nahroyo":2wqdd7py" said:
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.
Opinions questions about using ideCAD Static 7
- Thread starter Ismail Hakki Besler
- Start date
excalibur_24
New Member
- WHEN I RECEIVE MRB STAIR DETAIL, I ENTER SCALE 1/20 AND THE SCALE IS 1/50 IN THE DETAIL LETTER, WHY DOES IT CONTINUE? - I DOWNLOAD THE LATEST VERSION BUT IT SOMETIMES FAILS WHEN WORKING AGAIN (WHEN RECEIVING A REPORT AND SOMETHING) - IT WOULD BE BETTER TO SHOW THE DETAILS IN THE ARTICLES
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Hello,
Stairs are drawn 1/1 under all conditions, text elevations are default It is written in accordance with the 1/50 technique, and when sending it to the plotter, it should be sent as 1 to 50. If you want to prepare the staircase drawing in another scale, you need to adjust the writing heights accordingly. The drawing will still be made 1/1 to one, but when sending it to the plotter, you should send it to 1 at the scale you want. In this case, you should also replace the scale text with change text"excalibur_24":1dbbza2k" said:- WHEN I GET MRB LADDER DETAIL, WHEN I ENTER SCALE 1/20, IN THE DETAIL ARTICLE, THE SCALE IS 1/50 CONTINUOUS WHY DOES IT CAUSE?
If the problem occurs on a project basis, we need to examine the project. If it's a random problem, it may occur depending on the hardware. If you want, we can look into the problem with remote access."excalibur_24":1dbbza2k" said:- I DOWNLOAD THE LATEST VERSION BUT AGAIN WHEN WORKING, IT SOMETIMES FAILURES AND CLOSES (WHEN RECEIVING REPORTS OR SOMETHING)
It will be more understandable for us if you state what you want in a form (this is not done here, let's do that) Good work"excalibur_24":1dbbza2k" said:- IT WOULD BE BETTER TO INDICATE IT IN DETAILS, WHICH WOULD SHALL BE SHOWN IN THE WRITTEN WRITTEN
mehmetdindas
New Member
Hello, Why are the stapling circles of the corner columns on the raft different in the attached project? Because both the column dimensions and the raft thickness are the same. In my opinion; With a useful height of 30/60 columns and 45 cm raft coming into the corner, Up=b+h+d should be 135 cm. 158 cm and 180 cm appeared in the program's account.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, We have included your notification in our notes. Thanks for your attention.
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Hi, the foundations joined at S22 are not connected to S22... They are connected at the intersection of the G-6 axis to the right of S22. This is the reason for the problem. However, there are other noticeable problems with the rafter raft data entries. There are also: For example, the foundations on the 1 axis are not supported on the columns. The single span is entered as a timed foundation. The two columns are stuck in a single foundation beam(TK219), but you entered the foundation in one piece. You had to enter data by capturing one of the columns. Continuously connecting the core panels foundations do not catch panel joint points.Foundations connected to columns that are not on the same axis are not entered in such a way as to cross the columns. There is no rule that double foundations must be entered at 0-90 degrees ) In projects where columns are scattered, it may be more logical to make a beamless raft solution instead of a rafter solution with beams. I suggest you convert the system to a beamless raft. Good work"bha":2a1m404g" said:good day In my idecad attached project, the ground safety stress on my foundations is always 0. When I recalculate, I see the inf value, I wonder why the problem is caused, how can I solve it, good work file: http://www.2shared.com/file /naXkUQxR/SAMPLE.html
HakanŞahin
Administrator
"nahroyo":2y85cdjj" said:IN THE PROJECT I'M WORKING ON I HAVE CONTINUOUSLY DESIGNED AS A FOUNDATION AFTER ANALYSIS, DOES THE BOTTOM AND TOP REINFORCEMENT OF SOME BEAMS LOOK TOGETHER IN THE CONTINUOUS BASE BEAM OPENINGS? If you add the project, we will review it...
The project I've done is normally b+z+4 floors, but I left b+z to reduce the size"HakanŞahin":29guaine" said:If you add the project, we'll review it..."nahroyo":29guaine" said:IN THE PROJECT I'M WORKING ON, I CONTINUOUSLY DESIGNED AFTER ANALYZING CONTINUOUS FUNDAMENTAL BEAM OPENINGS, SOME OF THESE NUMBERS LOOK AT THE SURFACES IS THIS A DESIGN ERROR?
HakanŞahin
Administrator
"nahroyo":1cqv92x7" said:my project is normally b+z+4 floors, but I left b+z to reduce the size[/quote ] Examine the joint points of the panels P17-P15-P13-P12. The joint points of the continuous foundations connected to these elements do not coincide with the joint points of the panels whose names I have written. Similarly, the same situation exists for the right-hand elements. You can examine the attached project; The joint points of the continuous foundations are arranged to coincide with each other depending on the need for the foundations.In addition, we recommend that you enter the panels that continue to the upper floor and that are not in panel size (P17 and P12 etc.) as column objects."HakanŞahin":1cqv92x7" said:If you add the project, we will examine it..."nahroyo":1cqv92x7" said:IN THE PROJECT I'M WORKING ON I HAVE CONTINUOUSLY DESIGNED FUNDAMENTALLY FUNDAMENTALS, AFTER I MADE ANALYZES AFTER THE MASTER CYCLE AND THE UPPER REINFORCEMENT IS NOT VISIBLE IS THIS A NORMAL SITUATION OR IS THIS A DESIGN Error?
The project I'm doing is normally b+z+4 floors, but I left b+z to reduce the size[/quote] Examine the nodal points of the P17-P15-P13-P12 panels. The nodal points of the continuous foundations connected to these elements and the nodal points of the panels whose names I have written do not overlap with each other. Similarly the case for right-hand elements is the same. You can review the attached project; In the basement floor, the panel gaps and, accordingly, the joint points of the continuous foundations are arranged to coincide with each other. In addition, we recommend that you enter the panels that continue to the upper floor and are not in panel size (P17 and P12 etc.) as column objects.[/quote] thank you very much for your help...
The idecad family has been considering/trying to take all our suggestions/requests into account so far. We thank them for this... I would like to make a few more humble requests from them, 1- sometimes the curtain length cannot be less than 7 times the curtain thickness in our projects (tdy 3.6.2). )) we use a curtain object, then it takes a lot of time to change all of them when it is noticed, instead it will be very useful if the program automatically recognizes such an object as a column or if it is possible to convert it to a column with the convert command. 2- It will be very useful if the program automatically detects the rib directions and can automatically discard the transverse distribution rib in floors with large openings.
HakanŞahin
Administrator
"mehmet205":1vg19ldn" said:Sometimes, for building entrances in architecture, raising the floor beam to +1.40m elevation is necessary, but when analyzing, the system cannot be solved. We can see why...
hello, can you check the basis of the attached project, if there are any problems, if there are any help, I will be glad, good work
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hi The base system created in the project is definitely wrong. In the design of the raft, the effect of the columns and curtains sitting on the raft slab is not taken into account. In the rafter raft foundation design, all columns and curtains should be connected to each other with the foundation beams. A raft slab should be placed in the eyes formed in between. In the non-beamed raft foundation, the raft slab borders should be created with the slab edge."nory":1tqg6ea8" said:hello, could you please check the basis of the attached project, if there are any problems, if you can help me, I will be glad, good workYou do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, The last project you added cannot be downloaded. However, the ground safety stress was entered as 8 t/m2 in the project you added in the previous message. It seems a little difficult to overcome the stress problem without making soil improvement or reducing the weight of the structure, according to the results of the study.In addition, a superstructure interactive solution is required for C and D groups. For this, you should model your foundation system as a raft foundation."nory":1fkmqv2g" said:hi, I designed the foundation as you said, I added the same project yesterday, but it still says ground safety is negative, if you can help me with the project attachments, I would appreciate it. Good dayYou do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.şli_radye1.ide7
Hello, in my project, balcony tiles are giving an error. Floors that do not fail on the ground and 1st floors fail on the upper floors. I strengthen the faulty reinforcement axis as much as the missing reinforcement, but it still does not work. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at where the problem is.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.