German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish 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
Re: Column beam connection safety problem
K18 and K16 Beams Change/object edit/ Beam/ Determine the basic direction of the beam command the right and left support of the beams to make the beams continuous.You will see that they are not continuous anyway."zeki78":jph3uorw" said:In the attached file, As2 values are taken as 0 in the column beam connection safety calculation of K16-17 beams in S5 column and K17-18 beams in S10 column. K4-5 beams and K5-6 beams are connected at an angle in S6 column, but there is no problem with them. What should we do about this problem Thanks in advance
Levent Özpak
New Member
Can you add your project and specify the names of the elements that go into each other?"msami":p0oh8phw" said:good day, some beams' information in the "beam loads" section in the calculation of the project I drew is conflicting. How can I fix this. Thanks in advance..
izmirlimuhendis
New Member
Unver, I misunderstood what you wrote, sorry.
Re: Column beam connection safety problem
K18 and K16 Beams Make the beams continuous by changing the right and left support positions of the beams with the Change/object edit/ Beam/ Determine the basic direction of the beam command. Get the drawings by doing both as yours and as I said. You will see that they are not continuous anyway.[/quote] Programmatically, there is a problem that we cannot accept beams with an angle difference of more than 30 degrees continuously, and I apply this angle value as 5 degrees. Even if I use the determine beam basic direction command, it takes As2 as 0 for beams with more than 5 degrees. My problem is that the As2 value is taken as 0 rather than drawing the beam as a continuous beam. Because of this problem, Column beam shear safety seems to save in situations that do not. If you look at the attached file, K4-5 K16-17 beams cannot be taken continuously due to the angle difference and As2 values are taken into account as 0. As a second problem, when we use the option to increase the ground safety value by 50% in earthquake loading in raft foundations, the saving foundations will increase the ground safety value by % in earthquake-free condition. It doesn't save 50 increments. Does the program not do this check?"NYILMAZ":hyrg795b" said:Take it easy"zeki78":hyrg795b" said:in the attached file, K16-17 beams in S5 column and K17-18 beams in S10 column are column beam In the joint safety calculation, As2 values are taken as 0. K4-5 beams in S5 column and K5-6 beams in S6 column are connected at an angle, but there is no problem with them. What should we do about this problem Thanks in advance
Levent Özpak
New Member
Re: Column beam connection security problem
"zeki78":2ba4n27f" said:Dear smart78, If the beams are not continuous, it is a correct approach to take As2 value as zero since the longitudinal reinforcements will not pass through the other support. As Nedim Bey said, if the viewing direction of the K16 and K18 beams is changed, these beams are accepted as permanent and they enter the Joint Security control together."NYILMAZ":2ba4n27f" said:There is a problem programmatically, we cannot accept beams with an angle difference of more than 30 degrees continuously and I apply this angle value as 5 degrees. too many beams takes Ace2 as 0. My problem is that the As2 value is taken as 0 rather than drawing the beam as a continuous beam. Because of this problem, Column beam shear safety seems to save in situations that do not. If you look at the attached file, K4-5 K16-17 beams cannot be taken continuously due to the angle difference and As2 values are taken into account as 0"zeki78":2ba4n27f" said:in the attached file K16- K17-18 beams in 17 and S10 columns, As2 values are taken as 0 in the column-beam junction safety calculation. K4-5 beams in S5 column and K5-6 beams in S6 column are connected at an angle, but there is no problem with them. What should we do about this problem Thanks in advance[ /quote] K18 and K16 Beams Change/object edit/ Beam/ Determine beam basic direction command the beams to make them continuous by changing the right and left support positions of the beams. you will see that they are not continuous anyway.In case earthquake loads are used on raft foundation without beams, stress control is not performed automatically according to vertical loads in reporting. (However, the stresses in the foundation can be examined separately for all loadings in the 3D frame mode in the perspective window.) Here, stress control can be reported according to vertical+earthquake loadings, first by using only vertical loads, then using earthquake loads and selecting 50% increment option if the soil group is suitable. Good work2. As a problem, when we use the option to increase the ground safety value by 50% in earthquake loading in raft foundations, the saving foundations do not save the ground safety value by 50% in the absence of an earthquake. Doesn't the program do this check.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, I think your structure is single storey and rigid rigid you have accepted."majesty":19x24jey" said:Good afternoon... Is it normal to not find any modd even though I solved the project with Mod combination method..?? what could be the cause of the problem:??
Yes, Mr. Levent I accepted it as single storey and rigid.. is it due to this situation..?"Levent Özpak":21yhnov2" said:Hello, I think you have accepted your structure as single storey and solid rigid."majesty":21yhnov2" said:Good day... Is it normal that it doesn't find any modd even though I solved the project with Mod merge method..?? What could be the cause of the problem :??
Levent Özpak
New Member
Yes, there is no floor where dynamic analysis is performed."majesty":kjjskdc5" said:Yes, Mr. Levent, I accepted it as one-floor and rigid.. is it due to this situation..?"Levent Özpak":kjjskdc5" said:Hello, I think you have accepted your structure as one-story and solid rigid."majesty":kjjskdc5" said:Good day... Is it normal that it doesn't find any modd even though I solved the project with Mod merging method..? What could be the cause of the problem:??
nosoupforu
New Member
Hi, ideCad is calculating static 7 mold quantity incorrectly. If you ask where I got this opinion from, I created a simple model. I made a balcony slab with a thickness of 20 cm, which is connected to the beam between the two columns. The dimensions of the slab are 10 meters by 2 meters. It does not take into account the molds that will be driven into the 3 exposed edges of the flooring in the mold quantity. I tried other models and the result is always the same. It only calculates the floor area of the balcony flooring while calculating the amount of mold. It would be nice if this situation can be fixed in idecad 8. Thanks.
nosoupforu
New Member
Hello Ünver, I added the example. The mold size is 20 m2, so it only takes the floor area of the balcony. Thank you."unver":2ke2cit5" said:Mr. can you add the example you made the nosoupfor Ünver ÖZCAN
nosoupforu
New Member
Hello Unver, There is no problem in the beam column joints. While calculating the quantity of the column formwork, he calculated the common surface with the beam, which is correct. But as I said, the balcony molds make the calculation incomplete. Hope it will be fixed in ideCad 8, thank you for your attention.
Levent Özpak
New Member
We didn't see a general problem in the situation you mentioned. Could you add an example? Good work"sereze":25wjtl2h" said:Basically it's calculating under the beam