Opinions questions about using ideCAD Static 7

[nahroyo]

Hi; More data about your project is needed to comment. If you add your project, we can check (compare) your settings and quantity values. In the light of this information, a value like 220ton/4446m²=49.5kg/m² it turns out that this seems quite a lot. Regards.

the project is in the link

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[nahroyo]

Hi; More data about your project is needed to comment. If you add your project, we can check (compare) your settings and quantity values. In the light of this information, a value like 220ton/4446m²=49.5kg/m² comes out, which seems quite a lot. Best regards.

the project is in the link

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

There are too many reinforcements in the attached project, what could be the reason?

 

[unver]

Mr. nahroyo Hello. What I saw in your project. 1- Your construction area is approximately 5500 m2. If your 220 tons of iron is correct, it goes below 40 kg per square meter. 2- your system is not statically balanced. It would be better if you put your project with no curtains in one direction. In the case you gave, it is necessary to take R=8 in the other direction. Because there is no curtain. 3- According to Annex 5, check that your rib beams (increase the load-bearing ones) are always the same as the wall loads on the beams. 4- Solve your project according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option. 5- It would be better if you solve the foundation as a raft without beams. 6- You did not add the ladder loads on the beam. If you solve it according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option, fix the stair braces. 7- Correct the errors given in the geometry checks 8- 6 warning according to the annex, check the rib loads as the loads seem low 9- Warning 7 according to the annex, make the elevator curtain a U curtain 10- live loads are always 0.2 t/m2 including the roof 11- 1 warning according to the annex beam it would be better if the column joints were fully converged. You have enlarged your colon. 12- According to Annex 2, you should put cantilever beams like other balconies, 13- According to Annex 3, to close with 10 cm ribs at the ends of the ribs, 14- According to Annex 4, to make a stair curtain, 15- According to Annex 8, you should make the beam 25 cm wide 16- Your live loads on the balconies should be .35 T/m2. If you take these corrections into account in your project, earthquake load balancing will be more accurate. decreases in your equipment amount. Take it easy Unver ÖZCAN

 

[NYILMAZ]

First of all, I would like to congratulate and appreciate Mr. Unver. My current suggestion is about the "make statically compatible" command. I think it is necessary to go to one or two edits in this command. * No undos after using command. You can't go back. There should be an option for that here. It should memorize the layer state, then the same command should change to "uncompatibility". Similar to the command Architectural plan / Pattern plan. * Perhaps the wall layer should not get in between the closed layers. * Scan must be entered between closed layers. (mostly scanning is used in architecture) * If the wall is closed, why is the door and window open (cold entering) * Furnishings (libraries) are in the middle. * Maybe all of these layers are locked and it should be blurred in the background like some nail polish selection, maybe this is the best. * Another request, I think I wrote it before. In Layer settings, drawing details tab, please let the object drawings be alphabetical order. thanks good work.

 

[Levent Özpak]

* There is no undos after the command is used. You can't go back. There should be an option for this here. It should memorize the layer state, then the same command should change to "remove compatibility". Similar to Architectural plan / Pattern plan command .

Hello Mr. Nedim, After saying "Compatible with static", won't the Open All command in Layer Settings work for the return process?

* If the wall is being closed, why is the door and window open (it's getting cold) * Furnishings (libraries) stand in the middle.

In the above sentence, I think when you say -Make compatible with static-, you mean that the door/window and library layer is not closed. I have not seen such a situation. In other words, the door, window and library layers are also closed. If we are talking about a different situation, could you add a small example? I wish you good work.

 

[NYILMAZ]

........ Hello Mr. Nedim, After saying "Compatible with static", won't the Open All command in Layer Settings work for the return process?

Of course it will. That's what I thought of. But if we had to turn off some layers during work, they will also open. We will have to overhaul the layers again (let's just say it's good luck)

* If the wall is closed Why is the door and window open (cold enters) * Furnishings (libraries) are in the middle

I think in the above sentence -When you say static-compatible, you mean that the door/window and library layer is not closed. I did not see such a case. library layers are also turned off. If we are talking about a different situation, can you add a small example?

As seen in the attached picture, the windows and doors are visible. It is also seen that the layer is open. Scans and libraries are also open. This state is "make it compatible with static. The state after the " command is used. No other commands were used. I didn't post because the file is too long. I will send if needed.

 

[Levent Özpak]

As you can see in the attached picture, the doors and windows are visible. The layer also appears to be open. Scans and libraries are also open. This is the state after using the "make static compatible" command. No other commands were used. The file is too long I didn't send it because I didn't send it.

 

[HakanŞahin]

I wonder if there is a download link for the .17 or 7.14 English demo version, I will have a British civil engineer friend install it for review.

Hello,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Good work

 

[NYILMAZ]

As seen in the attached picture, the doors and windows are visible. It also appears to have an open groove in the layer. Scans and libraries are also open. This is the state after using the "make static compatible" command. No other commands were used. I didn't post because the file is too long. If necessary, I will send it.

You need to add a project. You only need to send a single floor. Good luck with.

 

[NYILMAZ]

In the attached file, it gives a double reinforcement warning on different floors on each floor. I'm looking at finite element lines, deleting floors and beams and rebuilding. This time it comes out in different tiles.

 

[Levent Özpak]

In the attached file, it gives a double reinforcement warning on different slabs on each floor. I look at the finite element lines, delete the slabs and beams and remake them. This time they appear in different slabs.

Hello, the boundaries of the D06 slab are a related issue. When the slab is deleted and placed again, the meshes are formed correctly in the slab analysis. It does not give a double reinforcement warning.

 

[unver]

Mr. NYILMAZ Hello, it seems that your project is not completed. Still, I wanted to warn you. 1- There is a support error in some of your console beams on each floor. (For example, the floor is not supported on the beams in the middle of the K45 beam.) 2- K98 beam on the 2nd floor is not supported on the column. All of these types of beams should be checked. You will have a different solution from the static system seen on the screen. 3- K84 beam is stuck too close to S9 column. Better enlarge the column to the beam. 4- your ladder loads are missing 5- if there is no special condition in your flooring, it would be better to make 12 cm instead of 10 cm. 6- Are your wall loads the same for each beam? 7- You can reduce the attic loads Easy, good work. Unver ÖZCAN

 

[NYILMAZ]

Mr NYILMAZ Hello, I think your project is not completed. I wanted to warn you, however. 1- There is a support error in some of your cantilever beams on each floor (for example, the floor K45 is not supported on the beams in the middle of the beam.) 2- 2nd floor K98 beam is not supported on the column. All of these type of beams should be checked. You will have a different solution from the static system seen on the screen. 3- K84 beam is stuck very close to S9 column. It would be better if you enlarge the column to the beam. 4- your ladder loads are missing 5- if there is no special condition in your flooring You'd better make 12 cm instead of 10 cm. 6- Are your wall loads the same on all beams? 7- You can reduce the attic loads Easy, good work. Ünver ÖZCAN

Dear Özcan, First of all, I would like to thank you for your interest. As I said on an occasion before You review all the projects submitted to the forum and you answer them by emphasizing sometimes the same things. As you said, my project is raw. I agree with your findings and here are the other I find it valuable in terms of setting an example for privates. In the new version of the project, almost all of them have been corrected and changed considerably. But since I couldn't see the problem with the flooring, I sent it in its current state. I first look at the project as it came from the architect. I already fixed item 1, 2, 3 and 4. The issue in item 2 occurs in column deletions. A subject that is easily forgotten and overlooked. I agree with you on point 5. I don't usually prefer mixed-height floors either. In fact, I no longer recommend low laying. But you are not always convincing enough. Unless I get it from IdeMimar, I don't elaborate much on wall load in residential projects. If full walls are not very effective, I make all walls the same. Thus, forgetting problems disappear when I delete the beam and re-enter it. I have two trump cards that I keep in my pocket. One is the loft loads and the other is the concrete quality. The subject of the creek loads; It is an intervention I made at the last moment as corrections were made and exposed to too many duplicates. When the system is solved, the fringes etc. he gets involved. I try to solve the system without ever increasing the concrete quality. Now when I get very close to the solution (like the problem of column beam shear safety in 1-2 elements), I take these two cards out of my pocket. then there is no one to say to my pleasure. I suddenly smile. My purpose in writing here is not to confuse but to create a sharing that may be another example. All my love. Especially to ideYAPI and Mr. Unver..... have a good night.....

 

[NYILMAZ]

If the lines to be drawn are selected in the Ladder settings / Appearance tab / line types section. As in the attached picture.

 

[NYILMAZ]

ideStatic 7.17 help (F1) menu Continuous baseline offsets[/color]":281nvj9q] Continuous baseline offsets command, Used to change the virtual axis of an existing continuous foundation. The virtual foundation axis is the straight line connecting the nodal points at the two ends of the foundation. Changing the foundation axis means that the misalignment of the foundation is constantly changing. To change the misalignment with the continuous foundation misalignment command after drawing continuous foundations: Change/Object Edit Click the line /Beam-Foundation/Continuous Foundation Misalignment. Drag the mouse cursor over the foundation beam whose offset you want to change. Left-click. The foundation will be selected. Click the right mouse button. The shape of the cursor will change. Click the left mouse button with two dots to determine the axis to which the foundation virtual axis will be moved. Continuously the foundation will be moved on the new axis determined.In this way, when the foundation misalignment is changed, the foundation changes but the location of the joint points does not change. e that; For example, let's change the misalignment of a continuous foundation connected to columns at both ends with the continuous foundation misalignment command. Even if the foundation moves outside of the columns and appears to be disconnected from the columns, its connection with the column will not be broken. If the column joint point is moved with the move node command, it will be seen that the relevant end of the continuous foundation also moves depending on the column movement. (or I can't)

 

[Levent Özpak]

Removed the Persistent Fundamental lapses command.

 

[sates]

In case of inverted beams, the detailing in the column-beam junction areas is not continuous in beam extensions. This is shown in the screenshots below.

 

[unver]

Mr. sates Hello: If the beam is given a positive level, your problem will be solved if you give an upper level to the columns to which the beam is attached. Unver ÖZCAN

 

[sates]

Dear Özcan, Thank you for your reply and interest. By making a reverse beam in a single-storey building, I also perform the parapet operation, and also prevent the beams from hanging down too much. If the columns are given an upper level, the columns make teeth in the inner parts of the roof. This is architecturally undesirable.

 

[HakanŞahin]

In case of inverted beams, the detailing in the column-beam junction areas in beam expansions is not continuous. This situation is shown in the screenshots below.

In a single storey building By making a reverse beam, I also do the parapet process, and I also prevent the beams from hanging down too much. If the columns are given an upper level, the columns make teeth in the inner parts of the roof. This is architecturally undesirable.

Hello, Instead of doing it that way, you can build the parapet as a brick or concrete wall above the beams. You can give the parapet load to the relevant beams as a wall load.