German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish saridurmus
New Member
can you give an example
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
I think I understood the issue, the beam system is copied just like the ones on the lower floor, the beam's constant load is taken as "0".."saridurmus":16ltkyjt" said:let's see if you can give an example
mhanifiata
New Member
I got this message from the forum about something I want to reply to...I wonder what it says General Error SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ] Incorrect string value: '\xE2\x80\x93 Ma...' for column 'post_text' at row 1 [1366] A sql error occurred while opening the page. If this problem persists, please contact the Message Board Administrator.
HakanŞahin
Administrator
The forum does not recognize some characters, this may be the reason. Especially if you are copy-pasting from a source, please contact the Message Board Administrator. quotes etc, it is useful to check different characters."mhanifiata":27axrlpu" said:I got this message on a topic I want to reply from the forum...what does it say General Error SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ] Incorrect string value: '\xE2\x80\x93 Ma...' for column 'post_text' at row 1 [1366] A sql error occurred while opening this page. If this problem persists, please contact the Message Board Administrator.
saridurmus
New Member
Dear Ilgada, in your project, you will create the frame for the system to support itself, even if there is no wall with the last floor beam loads correctly entered from the data entry direction. You always have a size problem in basic data. fix them Fix d16 slab and adjacent beams have sizing problems. Check the geometry and you'll see. good work.
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Node number and coordinate information along with the error message in the analysis window Check whether there are incorrectly connected and/or zero-sized elements in the relevant coordinate and correct the data entry."msami":14iq52v1" said:good day, the project is not doing analysis. it gives jacobian error. even though I check geometry, it gives this error. can you give information about it.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, You can watch training videos, use manual and help."hllgns":233eycqg" said:Hi. I'm a student of interior architecture. How can I learn this program?
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.
Hello. In order to understand the difference between a semi-rigid diaphragm and a fully rigid diaphragm solution, I very simply created a frame with 3 axes, vertical and horizontal. columns 40*80, beams 25*50, floors ribbed vertically in plan. A simple 3-layer model. I entered all parameters the same in both fully rigid and semi-rigid diaphragm solutions, ductility high R=8, soil class Z1, earthquake zone 1. When I took a look at the reinforced concrete results after the analysis, I noticed that the reinforcement was more frequent in all element sections, be it beams and arms, with a fully rigid diaphragm. Also, in the reports, the cross-sectional area of 25*50 beams is A=0.16 m2 in fully rigid, while A=0.13 m2 in semi-rigid diaphragm. and the total weight of the structure, including live loads, is 270.22 tons at fully rigid, while it is 270.50 tons at semi-rigid. What is the reason for these differences? I will be very grateful to you if I can get an idea about this before I begin to solve the statics of a fairly large building whose architecture will be completed in the next week, or rather two buildings that will be raised as two towers. My second question will be about the raft foundation. an orthogonal, 55 cm deep beamless mat foundation. When I checked the foundation reinforcements of this building, which is located in the 3rd earthquake zone and consists of a rigid basement, ground, mezzanine and 4 normal floors with ground class Z3, I found that the lower reinforcement was laid more often than the upper reinforcement. upper Q16/20, lower Q16/16. This is not the case with any of the other building foundations I have checked, which have almost the same parameters and structural properties. Since there are only drawing sheets and account printouts of the project author in my office, I cannot send them to you digitally. When I look at the reports, it is not specified where the main account axes pass. I wonder if the cause of the problem is the calculation axles defined on the basis of raft?
HakanŞahin
Administrator
This expression is not a clear expression... Frequent reinforcement It is not clear what you mean by this. If you add an example, we will examine it."gunner":2mir0l0g" said:When I took a look at the reinforced concrete results after the analysis, I noticed that the reinforcement is more frequent in all element sections, be it beams or arms, with a fully rigid diaphragm.
It is normal for this to happen because in the fully rigid diaphragm solution, the floors are not in the stiffness matrix, the contribution of the floors to the beam area is determined by the table. In other words, beam sections are table sections. Inertia and fields are determined accordingly. In the semi-rigid diaphragm solution, the floors are solved together with the beams in the same system. The cross-sectional properties of the slab and the cross-sectional properties of the beams are present in the model. Therefore, the beam sections are rectangular. However, the plated section is taken into account for both analysis models in reinforced concrete."gunner":2mir0l0g" said:and in the reports, the cross-sectional area of 25*50 beams is A=0.16 m2 in fully rigid, while A=0.13 m2 in semi-rigid diaphragm. and the total weight of the structure, including live loads, is 270.22 tons at fully rigid, while it is 270.50 tons at semi-rigid. What is the reason for these differences?
Although the difference you mentioned is a small one, we did not see such a difference in our tests. If you add an example, we will review it"gunner":2mir0l0g" said:The total weight of the structure, including moving loads, is 270.22 tons at full rigid and 270.50 tons at semi-rigid.
It may be caused by the position of the calculation axles."gunner":2mir0l0g" said:My second question will be about the raft foundation. an orthogonal, 55 cm deep beamless mat foundation. When I checked the foundation reinforcements of this building, which is located in the 3rd earthquake zone and consists of a rigid basement, ground, mezzanine and 4 normal floors with ground class Z3, I found that the lower reinforcement was laid more often than the upper reinforcement. upper Q16/20, lower Q16/16. This is not the case with any of the other building foundations I have checked, which have almost the same parameters and structural properties. Since there are only drawing sheets and account printouts of the project author in my office, I cannot send them to you digitally. When I look at the reports, it is not specified where the main account axes pass. I wonder if the cause of the problem could be the calculation axles defined on the basis of raft?
I would only like to point out that this small difference is for a simple 3-storey model of 64 m2. I don't know how much the difference can change in a big project. I could not upload the semi-rigid solution, its size is 10 mb. As I mentioned before, both applications are exactly the same.We found no such difference in our trials, although the difference you noted was a small one. If you add an example, we will examine it.
By frequent reinforcement, I mean when I examine the beams from the reinforced concrete tab, the fully rigid solution gives reinforcement at the bottom left and bottom right. The same is true for the upper supports.gunner wrote:When I looked at the reinforced concrete results after the analysis, I noticed that the reinforcement was more frequent in all member sections, be it beams and arms, with a fully rigid diaphragm. This expression is not a clear statement... It is not clear what you mean by tight reinforcement. If you add an example, we will examine it.
It may be due to the location of the account axes.[/quote] Do we have a chance to read the position of the account axes in the reports?"gunner":qi17ey4m" said:My second question will be about the raft foundation. An orthogonal, 55 cm deep beamless mat foundation. It is located in the 3rd earthquake zone and consists of a rigid basement, ground, mezzanine and 4 normal floors with ground class Z3. When I checked the foundation reinforcements of this building, I found that the lower reinforcement was laid more often than the upper reinforcement. upper Q16/20, lower Q16/16. This is not the case in any of the other building foundations I checked, which have almost the same parameters and structural properties. I can't send it to you digitally because the project author has drawing sheets and account printouts. When I look at the reports, it doesn't show where the main account axes go. I wonder if the cause of the problem could be the account axes defined on the basis of the raft?
HakanŞahin
Administrator
In the project you added, the building weights for both solutions are the same (270.22 tons)"gunner":1emacjcj" said:
It is normal to have this difference. One is fully rigid slab, the other is semi-rigid slab... This link will help you theoretically:"gunner":1emacjcj" said:I mean dense reinforcement when I examine the beams from the reinforced concrete tab, they are fully rigid The solution is that it gives reinforcement to the lower left and lower right. The same is the case with the upper supports.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
[quote ="gunner":1emacjcj"]so, do we have a chance to read the position of the calculation axles in the reports?.[/quote] It is not printed in the report. Ask for the plan image. The position of the reinforced concrete calculation axes is not a problem. The main reinforcement is determined according to the location, the additions are according to the working distance It is calculated by deducting from the main reinforcement.Console reinforcement in cantilever flooring In my attached project, the floor thickness of the console, which is 220 cm on the 1st floor ceiling, is min. It should be 22 cm. But this is a high value.. Can I edit the Slab Calculation axis to correct this error and make the reinforcement "flat reinforcement on top" instead of "cantilever reinforcement"..
Re: Console reinforcement in console floor
"illaga":14qttj6j" said:In my attached project, the floor thickness of the console on the 1st floor ceiling, which is 220 cm, should be at least 22 cm. But this is a high value.. Can I make the reinforcement "flat reinforcement on top" instead of "cantilever reinforcement" by editing the Slab Calculation axis in order to resolve this error. For cantilever hurdi slabs, h>=lk/10 is determined.In my opinion, I would cover that slab with beams and remove it from console slab.Otherwise, you will have to increase the thickness of the slab behind it.