German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish He calculates the formwork under the tie beams. While it should be 0.80, it gave 1.1 length. but he was calculating the foundations correctly, this problem only exists in the tie beams. I have a question about the foundation. Our major moments are in the y direction but always in the fundamental x direction. In this case, is the reinforcement and ground safety stress control carried out in the direction where the foundations are weak? How accurate is the attached modeling (assuming we add the moments from the superstructure to the column)? Let's think of it as an industrial facility with a steel roof.
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
Levent Özpak
New Member
Since the tie beams are attached to the column from the upper level of the foundation and on the assumption that there is no soil underneath, the lower surface is also included in the formwork quantity. Bending moment and reinforcement calculation in the direction where the continuous foundation is connected to the columns, and stress control under the entire foundation for the width of the foundation.
So the answer to the question is in itself, if you entered the floor height correctly, it should be more than 375cm, 25/170 size does not provide the screen aspect ratio anyway. 1. Increase the width of the curtain, 2. Enter larger sized columns in the curtain header area and use them as the curtain header area."tedarmi":17983x8e" said:how can I solve this error?
I am looking for answers to the following questions. Thank you from now. 1- In the selection of the "R" coefficient, the system is divided into two as Framed and Curtained. If our system is framed but the basement floor is curtained, how will the "R" coefficient be determined? 2- For example, let's take a B+Z+2 storey building. Here, there is a curtain on the ceiling of the 1st floor, but not in the ceiling of the 2nd floor; Is it necessary to mark the option "Basement curtain/curtain that does not continue on all floors" in the properties of the panel located on the 1st floor ceiling... Or should this option be selected in the elevator curtain that ends on the last floor ceiling of the system?
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, If the shear force rate on the curtains (alphaS)>0.75 is calculated from R=10-4*alphaS in systems with high ductility level curtains. (TDY 2007 item 2.5.2.2) The values of alphaS and 10-4*alphaS are printed under the title of the reason for choosing the R coefficient in the General Report of Earthquake Code."brhmcnr01":fs2endql" said:Hi... I drew the Basement Floor Formwork Plan. And the last time I asked for a report, it just says to me, "There are curtains in the system and the R coefficient is greater than 7." What should I do? Please Good day...
antediluvian35
New Member
Hello friends, I have some question marks about the project I added, I want to move on to the project drawings in line with the opinions of the friends who will guide me with their experience. There are no errors in the system at the moment, Z2/B/19.2/4320 related to the ground, I made a superstructure interactive solution because it is group B. Of course, it would be good to add an extra column about the stud beams on the floors, but in this case, is there any harm in starting the drawings as the system saves? Is there a faulty situation regarding the foundation beam connections?
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, In your project, it seems that TK33 and TK34 foundations are not connected to curtain P03. You can check the elements to which the foundations are connected from the Continuous Basics and Static Results report."antediluvian35":1z343w4x" said:Hi guys, I have some question marks about the project I added, I want to move on to the project drawings in line with the opinions of the friends who will guide me with their experience. There are no errors in the system at the moment, Z2/B/19.2/ Since 4320 is Group B, I made an interactive solution for the superstructure. Of course, it would be good to add an extra column for the stud beams on the floors, but in this case, is there any harm in starting the drawings as the system saves.Is there a faulty situation regarding the foundation beam connections?
antediluvian35
New Member
"Levent Özpak":1f6coh33" said:Hello, It seems that the TK33 and TK34 foundations are not connected to the P03 curtain in your project. You can check the elements to which the foundations are connected from the Continuous Basic Information and Static Results report. Have a nice day."antediluvian35":1f6coh33" said:Hi guys, I have some question marks about the project I added, I want to move on to project drawings in line with the opinions of my friends who will guide me with their experience. There are no errors in the system at the moment, Z2/B/19.2/4320 related to the ground, I made a superstructure interactive solution because it is group B. Of course, it would be good to add an extra column about the stud beams on the floors, but in this case, is there any harm in starting the drawings as the system saves? Is there a faulty situation regarding the foundation beam connections?
antediluvian35
New Member
Regarding the project I uploaded, there are no columns under the corners where the beams intersect on the elevator tower floor. I did not find it appropriate to add a column on this floor, even if it is in minimum dimensions. Wouldn't it be enough to draw a detail here and state that an infill wall should be built under the beams, what are your opinions, friends? Also, is it not reasonable to cancel the wall loads on the beams on the last floor slab, except for the beams under the elevator tower? How can the beam wall loads on the last floor be regulated for a terrace roof and a normal wooden roof. (I added the project before the 2nd post)
"Roof" in "Coating name" in Flooring/General settings: There is a load like 0.149 tf/m2, you can use it. Your floor thickness also affects this. You can also use "Roof rooms" for "moving load": 0.15 tf/m2. These are the lowest values that can be selected for the relevant loads anyway. if it allows, see how many cm it saves the floor thickness starting from 80mm."illaga":28rxccgp" said:what should be the minimum fixed load and live load on the loft ceiling so that my permanent foundations can be saved in an existing project renovation?
Levent Özpak
New Member
The message indicates that the analysis is not completed. If the analysis was performed according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option, the ram may not be enough. There should be at least 8 GB of ram in the analysis according to the rigid diaphragm. Recommended 16 GB) If the analysis was made according to the full rigid diaphragm, there may be a problem in data entry."illaga":fo42m8bs" said:what is the reason for the error in the plugin? analysis continues at the same time. Is this solution healthy?
"Levent Özpak":3tuwdk3a" said:The message indicates that the analysis is not complete. If the analysis is made according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option, the ram may not be enough. After marking ok, the solution was continued..analysis completed..fully rigid diaphragm solution done..no problem in geometric error..would you mind if I send you an e-mail?"illaga":3tuwdk3a" said:what is the reason for the error in the plugin? analysis continues at the same time. Is this solution healthy?
Levent Özpak
New Member
"illaga":1b1wl6mg" said:"Levent Özpak":1b1wl6mg" said:Send it, let's examine it."illaga":1b1wl6mg" said:what is the reason for the error in the plugin? analysis continues at the same time. Is this solution healthy?[ /quote] The message indicates that the analysis is not completed. If the analysis was performed according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option, the ram may not be enough. (A minimum of 8 gb ram should be used in the analysis according to the semi-rigid diaphragm. Recommended 16 GB) If the analysis was made according to the fully rigid diaphragm, there may be a problem in data entry.[/ quote] The system cannot be resolved error appeared on the screen and after ticking OK, the solution was continued..analysis completed..fully rigid diaphragm solution done..no problem in geometric error..would you mind if I send you an e-mail?
yilmazozaktan
New Member
This building is an existing building on site. performance analysis requested."mhanifiata":38sop1gx" said:there is a difference in approach between the two solutions. There is no exact calibration between RBTE and TDY either. In the current building evaluation, E is calculated again and with other approaches. this is very effective in terms of rigidity. For example, testing the period/frequency change On the other hand, when the factor of importance of the building and the factor of R number are included in the calculation, you will encounter a completely different structure. The problem you mentioned may not be overcome in all cases. Especially the known problem is the short beam/brittle fracture event. I hope these will be overcome with the new regulation. You don't have to make a risk assessment. If you absolutely want to provide it, you can determine the reason for which the relevant element(s) are at risk and enlarge the section/reinforcement adjustment accordingly...