Opinions questions about using ideCAD Static 7

[Levent Özpak]

Hi, *Examination of the raft laying results in the Perspective Window is for raft slabs without beams. This control cannot be done in the 3D frame due to the solution logic for the systems in rafter raft flooring. *The basic system in the STRDY.ide7 project is definitely wrong in terms of data entry. (In this way, the effect of the columns sitting on the raft slab in the foundation design is not taken into account on the raft.) In the rafter raft foundation design, all the columns should be connected to each other with continuous foundation beams, and a raft slab should be placed in the cells formed in between. (As in the STRDY2.ide7 project) *Soil stress control in the rafter raft foundation is made by comparing the sum of the G + Q values formed in the raft slab eyes after the analysis with the soil safety stress value. These values are also printed in the Raft Foundation Static and Reinforced Concrete Calculation report. Good work

 

[majesty]

Have a nice day... What could be the cause of the appearance in the figure..:? I don't pay attention but it happens sometimes... I wonder why..:?? Good luck with....

 

[Levent Özpak]

Have a nice day... What exactly could be the cause of the appearance in the figure..:? .

Hello, The situation in the picture you added may be caused by very small angle differences between the beams. Try to change the trim algorithm of the beams with the Change/Object Edit/Object Trim Method command. If not, add your project. Let's examine the situation.

 

[majesty]

Mr. Levent; Thank you for your answer.. I'm fixing the problem in the same way, but.. I get the same view again when I take the analysis or throw the plan and go back to the main screen...:?

 

[Levent Özpak]

Levent Bey; Thank you for your reply.. I'm also fixing the problem in the same way, but.. I get the same view again when I take the plan and go back to the main screen...:?[/ quote] Add your project, let's review.

 

[gunner]

First of all, thank you very much for your answers Mr. The base system in the

*STRDY.ide7 project is definitely wrong in terms of data entry. (In this way, the effect of the columns sitting on the raft slab in the foundation design is not taken into account on the raft.)

reports, when I look at the 'raft foundation column and panel loads' section, I see that the permanent, live and horizontal loads of the columns without beams are calculated. This is the part where I'm confused.

Soil stress control on rafter raft foundation is made by comparing the sum of G + Q values formed in the raft slab cells after the analysis with the soil safety stress value

Shouldn't the E load be included as well as the beamless raft foundation? Finally, when I lay the raft, the load Q is taken as approximately 10% of the G by the program, unless there is user intervention. Is there any particular reason for this?

 

[illaga]

Is there a menu where object label settings can be changed in template, expansion, application plans? For example, without specifying the floor index, I want it to be S02 instead of SB02, SZ02.

 

[HakanŞahin]

Is there a menu to change object label settings in pattern, expansion, application plans?For example, I want it to be S02 instead of SB02 , SZ02 without specifying the floor index

Leave the index column in the floor parameters blank.

 

[gunner]

Is there anyone who can reply to my message dated Jan 10, 2014, 20:38 and help?

 

[Levent Özpak]

First of all, thank you very much for your answers, Mr. Levent. The foundation system in the

*STRDY.ide7 project is definitely wrong in terms of data entry (In this way, the effect of the columns sitting on the raft flooring is not taken into account in the foundation design. )

reports, when I look at the 'raft foundation column and panel loads' section, I see that the permanent, live and horizontal loads of the columns without beams are calculated. This is where I get confused.

Soil stress control on rafter raft foundation, after analysis It is made by comparing the sum of the G + Q values formed in the raft slabs with the soil safety stress value

Shouldn't the E load be included as well as the beamless raft foundation?

Hello, earthquake loads are taken into account in the reinforcement calculations in the rafter raft foundation. control is done only according to vertical loads. The program algorithm is like this now. Also, C and D g in TDY 2007 On rubu floors, a superstructure interactive solution is requested. In the program, the superstructure interactive solution is currently foreseen for beamless raft foundations.

Lastly, when I lay the raft, the load Q is taken as approximately 10% of the G by the program, as long as there is no user intervention. Is there a special reason for this?

We cannot make such a generalization. When the live load values of the floor in the superstructure are increased and analyzed, it can be observed that the live loads calculated in the raft flooring also increase. Good work

 

[illaga]

is there a menu where object label settings can be changed in pattern, expansion, application plans? For example, without specifying the floor index, I want it to be S02 instead of SB02, SZ02

Leave the index column in the floor parameters blank.

Thank you very much....

 

[majesty]

Have a nice day. Take it easy... I have two small questions........ I have a 30/320 curtain..... It would be better if I modeled it as a panel, if I entered it as a column... When I enter it as a column, the system perceives it as a curtain. but in calculations it solves as a bar, not as a shell... And when @s values are calculated differently, the R coefficient changes...??? My second question is that the file size is very large when saving... It's around 1Gb or something... is this normal? If there is an error, what could it be caused by..:?? I wish you a good day..

 

[Levent Özpak]

Good day Take it easy... I have two small questions... A 30/320 curtain....... It would be better if I modeled it as a panel, should I enter it as a column. ..When I enter it as a column, the system detects it as a screen, but solves it as a bar, not a shell in calculations... And when @s values are calculated differently, the R coefficient changes...???

It is recommended to model the curtain elements as shells. Column objects that provide the ratio are resolved as pitch. Therefore, it is normal for the alf S value to change.

2. My question is that the file size is very large when saving... around 1Gb or something... is this normal.. if there is an error, what could it be caused by.. :?? have a nice day..

If you are analyzing according to the semi-rigid aperture option, it is normal for the file size to grow.

 

[proisa]

When designing normal ductility or mixed systems, do the reinforced concrete parameters of these elements need to be changed to ensure that the transverse reinforcement of columns and beams with normal ductility level is applied according to the normal ductility level rules? Thanks...

 

[Levent Özpak]

When designing normal ductility level or mixed systems, do the reinforced concrete parameters of these elements need to be changed to ensure that the transverse reinforcement of columns and beams with normal ductility level is applied according to the normal ductility level rules? Thanks...[/quote ] Hello, In the program, the minimum stirrup conditions of columns and beams are always determined according to the high ductility level.

 

[siromar]

good work, as in the curtains with level difference, in the semi-rigid solution, the slab length changes need to be separated by the slab edge, otherwise the situation in the pictures I shared appears and causes changes in the calculations Maybe it was on your fix list in the update, but I wanted to share it....

 

[Levent Özpak]

good work In the semi-rigid solution for floors as well as for curtains with level difference, slab length changes need to be separated by slab edge, otherwise the situation in the pictures I shared appears and causes changes in calculations Maybe it was on your fix list in the update, but I wanted to share it.. ..

Mr. Ömer Hello, Thank you for your report. Can you add the problematic project to the message? Good work

 

[siromar]

Hello Mr. Levent, the file is attached.

 

[gunner]

Good afternoon, the following image is formed at some beam junctions in my project. Am I throwing the beams wrong? When I check it with perspective 3d frame, the beams seem to be connected by green arms. Does this affect the analysis result?

 

[HakanŞahin]

good afternoon in my project, some beam junctions look like this. Am I throwing them wrong? When I check the beams with a perspective 3d frame, the beams appear to be connected by green arms. Does this affect the analysis result?

Can you add the project too?