Opinions questions about using ideCAD Static 7

[yagmurcankocak]

Good afternoon, I'm doing a retaining wall calculation. There is another structure behind this retaining wall (a stone wall) and it remains within the radius of collapse (ie it has an effect on the retaining wall that I have calculated). I will enter the load coming from this wall as a surcharge, but I want to enter where it is in terms of accuracy of the calculation (about 4m behind the retaining wall). Is this possible ? Or do I have to generalize the load coming from this wall and enter it that way? Because there is an area in the detail area where I can only define the load in t/m. I can't enter any distance. Thanks in advance, Good work. Rain Can KOÇAK

 

[yagmurcankocak]

I have one more question. There is a formula for the Floor used in the retaining wall calculation. 6.1a formula in earthquake regulation. In the root at the end of this formula, sin(dli) (d = internal friction angle, l = earthquake acceleration angle, active pressure soil angle). According to this formula, the sum of the earthquake acceleration angle + the active earth pressure angle should normally be less than the internal friction angle. Otherwise, since this part of the formula is in the root, the formula (hence the program) should give an error. As an approximation, it can be thought of as "if the active earth pressure angle is greater than the internal friction angle during an earthquake, the soil at the greater angle will slide". But in this way (for example, where the internal friction angle is 26 degrees, the program should give the same values for active earth pressure angles of 30 degrees and 40 degrees. But this is not the case. The program gives different values for all values and does not give any calculation errors. I wonder if I'm calculating something wrong or is there a mistake in the program about this? Thank you very much in advance, Good work. Yağmur Can KOÇAK

 

[HakanŞahin]

I want to get to where the calculation is in terms of accuracy (about 4m behind the retaining wall) Is this possible?

There is no such possibility.

A I have one more question. There is a formula for the Floor used in the retaining wall calculation. 6.1a formula in earthquake regulation. In the root at the end of this formula, sin(dli) (d = internal friction angle, l = earthquake acceleration angle, active pressure soil angle). According to this formula, the sum of the earthquake acceleration angle + the active earth pressure angle should normally be less than the internal friction angle. Otherwise, since this part of the formula is in the root, the formula (hence the program) should give an error. As an approximation, it can be thought of as "if the active earth pressure angle is greater than the internal friction angle during an earthquake, the soil at the greater angle will slide". But in this way (for example, where the internal friction angle is 26 degrees, the program should give the same values for active earth pressure angles of 30 degrees and 40 degrees. But this is not the case. The program gives different values for all values and does not give any calculation errors. I wonder if I'm calculating something wrong or is there something wrong with the program? Thank you very much in advance, Good work.

Hello, Theoretically, the internal friction angle should always be the largest. The result is Internal FrictionAngle-EarthquakeAccelerationAngle-ActiveEarthAngle. Since it is thought that it expresses

 

[muhammed47]

I wonder if it is possible to determine how many earthquakes a project we drew in idecad can withstand.

 

[NYILMAZ]

I want to change ladder / select all / properties / static material. I want to change the common points at once. Respects.

 

[HakanŞahin]

I wonder if it is possible to determine what degree of earthquake a project we have drawn in idecad can withstand.

According to TDY 2007, 4 earthquake zones are defined; It is also possible to calculate with any effective ground acceleration value... For building construction principles, the minimum design conditions specified according to the selected earthquake zone are applied. For existing buildings, it is possible to perform performance analysis according to the building's intended use and type... It is expected that the building will provide the minimum performance specified in the table, according to the earthquake probability.

 

[HakanŞahin]

Ladder / select all / properties / I want to change static material. I want to change common points at once. Regards.

Hi Nedim, Settings/Static Materials You can do whatever you want with the command.

 

[izmirlimuhendis]

What exactly does the stirrup tightening section and the use earthquake loadings in the calculation section in the parameters-continuous foundation parameters tab do? For example, if the option to use earthquake loads in the calculation is not selected, what does the calculation see, it does not take into account only the foundation beams and in which cases this option is used. What exactly does the stirrup tightening part do? What are the cases when we do not make stirrup compaction. So when to use this option. Thank you .

 

[NYILMAZ]

When I hover over the object, I want information about the layer of that object. Or it can be in the information line when we select it. Or somehow, some information should be given about which layer the object is in. I don't know if there is.

 

[HakanŞahin]

I wonder what exactly the stirrup tightening section in the parameters-continuous foundation parameters tab and the use earthquake loading section in the calculation do. and in which cases this option is used. What exactly does the stirrup tightening part do? What are the cases when we do not perform stirrup tightening. So when to use this option. Thank you.

If the "Use earthquake load in the calculation" option is not selected in the continuous foundation parameters, the continuous foundation is not selected. Calculation and stress checks are made only for fixed and live loads. Normally it should be marked. Stirrup tightening: If checked, stirrup tightening is done at an interval equal to half of the spacing of the stirrup that is placed in the opening on the continuous foundation. It is shown in the drawing. is placed in. Normally it should be checked. Good work

 

[HakanŞahin]

When I hover over an object, I want information about that object's layer to be given. Or it can be in the information line when we select it. Or somehow, information about which layer the object is in must be given. I don't know if there is.[ /quote] Hi Nedim, If you mark the object and click the "Change object layer" command in the toolbar, a selected layer will appear, which means that the object is defined in that layer.

 

[yagmurcankocak]

Good evening, We encountered a problem with the foundations of a building that I am going to do performance analysis. The required foundations, which were much larger in his project, turned out to be much smaller in reality. As a result, I encountered problems with the ground safety stresses. While trying various possibilities to solve this problem, I came across a number of interesting (i.e. not supposed to be) things. - When I entered the individual foundations, which are normally according to the project of the building, aside from the reinforcement problems, I did not encounter any problems with the ground safety stresses (max 11 t/m²). (Trial1.ide7) - Since the existing foundations in the building are smaller than they should be, I thought of converting single foundations to raft foundations by directly filling in the gaps (using the necessary anchors and chemicals). Based on this idea, I defined a raft foundation under the structure (with 50 cm of armor coming out) in the program. After this definition, soil stresses increased approximately 2.5 times compared to single foundations. And in addition, stress concentrations occurred in the middle of the structure (loads in the structure are symmetrical and equal). Later, after experiencing various difficulties, just out of curiosity, I installed reinforcement curtains on all axes of the building in the basement to check. I had hoped to model it this way as a much more rigid plate than the raft foundation. Therefore, I expected that the stress concentration in the middle of the building would be removed and I would encounter more evenly distributed stresses under the foundation, but the result was not as I expected (Deme2.ide7) - After applying what I explained above, I removed all the curtains in the building, again out of curiosity. In this state, the ground stresses were lower than in the curtained case. Now, am I wrong in this case? Why do the soil stresses (around 8-9 t/m²) that normally save with single foundations increase (15-20 t/m²) when they return to the raft foundation? Isn't the stress reduction due to the expansion of the base area normally expected? If the answer to this question is that it will increase anyway, why would that happen? If it is expected to decrease, why could the program have given the opposite result? I know I wrote a little long. I would like to thank the experienced friends who can spare the time in advance. Good evening, Yağmur Can KOÇAK Sample files

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

 

[Levent Özpak]

Hello, the base is not defined under the panel objects in the trial1.ide7 project. In this case, the panel effects will not be transferred to the foundation. Therefore, it would not be a correct approach to compare the baseline results in the trial1.ide7 and trial2.ide7 projects. When you define a single raft foundation in the system, the stresses increase in the corners, not in the middle region. Notes: -There is a vertical continuity problem in the reinforcement curtains in the project Deneme2.ide7. (Reinforcement curtains are not defined on the ground floor) -Foundation boundaries on the RD02 raft slab are incorrect. The raft slab edge should be arranged to include the columns. Good work

 

[saridurmus]

Levent, I found the error we talked about on the phone. I have an analysis done, but when I want to get a report (earthquake regulation general report), the program closes. When I have the analysis done again, the 60MB file has values like 146MB. I'm getting the analysis done again, it comes back to 60Mb level, I couldn't find the error.

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

 

[Levent Özpak]

Mr. Levent, I found the error we talked about on the phone. I have an analysis done, but when I want to get a report (earthquake regulation general report), the program closes. When I analyze again, the 60MB file is 146MB. I couldn't find the error.

Mr. İbrahim, When the analysis is performed on the project you added, the Earthquake regulation General report and other reports can be obtained. Also, the file size appears to be the same size after each analysis. We did not see a problem here. If you contact by phone, you can remotely access your computer and solve the problem. Notes: S17 and S18 columns defined on the 14th floor do not have vertical continuity - The raft floor defined as the elevator shaft is leveled, but the panel objects to which the raft flooring is attached are not leveled. -The analysis was made according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option. However, the interior stairs support with the structure according to the solution conditions it hasn't.

 

[NYILMAZ]

When I enter the tiling command in the attached project, the program pauses a lot. when i wait too long it turns on but same problem every time. There are plenty of tile edges and curved tile edges. Where exactly does the problem originate?

 

[HakanŞahin]

In the attached project, when I enter the tiling command, the program pauses a lot. If I wait too long, it returns but the same problem every time. There are plenty of tile edges and curved tile edges. Where exactly does the problem come from?

Hello Nedim, the slab edges on the 6 axis are not correctly connected (not split) to the beams K19 on the left and K44 on the right. When connected correctly to the beams, there is no problem.

 

[windtalker]

Hello, In the 3D view window of the attached project, a node at the base of the P02 curtain of the elevator shaft appears to be connected to the node notes at the base of the P11 curtain in the 1st basement. What is the reason of this? How can it be fixed. Is the elevator shaft design of my attached project correct? Thanks in advance for your answer. download link:

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

 

[unver]

Mr. windtalker My suggestions for the project 1- given -2. the floor must be removed (overlay is given, the elevator foundation is not taken as a floor) 2- the support conditions of the stairs should be corrected 3- the support at the intersection of the K28-K33 beams placed on the inside of the stairs is insufficient 4- the beam placed at the floor level for the outer staircase can be pulled to the lower level so that it reaches the floor landing 5- inner carrier beams can be expanded 10 cm more 6- beamless raft foundation should be taken adjacent to elevator shaft curtains 7- beamless raft elevator foundation should be entered into this space by giving a level like -100cm 8- curtains adjacent to elevator shaft should fit on beamless raft elevator foundation 9- cassette If there are wall loads on the floors, increase the live loads Take it easy Ünver ÖZCAN

 

[windtalker]

First of all, thank you very much for your reply. I've had some issues with your suggestions, and I'd be very happy if we could discuss them. 1- Based on a question that Hakan has answered before, I defined the elevator shaft on a separate floor. I am giving the link that may be useful for you too

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

2- I do the ladder solution by ticking the solution option together with the structure. 3- I will be glad if you can help me how to fix this situation. How can I control this deficiency? 4- In order not to create discontinuity in the floor frame system, I leave the beams at floor level. Don't you think it would be more accurate to define separate beams instead of changing the elevations of the beams? (of course the short column tab should also be marked) 5- I am increasing the carrier beams. Thanks for your suggestion. 6- What is the reason for this? It's a common problem I have. When I arrange the slab edge adjacent to the columns, gaps are formed on the raft foundation. I've read that these gaps only look like this in 3D, in the analysis they basically solve without gaps, but I'm not sure. 7- I know that the elevator shaft should be 1.5 m, is it wrong? 9- For the loads on the cassette floor, I divide the total wall load by the floor area and increase it by 1.5 times. Is there a more effective solution? Thank you in advance for your reply .