Opinions questions about using ideCAD Static 7

[Levent Özpak]

Hello, on the 2nd floor, at -334 cm elevation, there are closed layers of beams and floors. Define the -334 level as a separate floor. In addition, *columns on the 1st and 2nd floors are not defined in the same coordinates as the ground floor. *S177-182-186-187 columns on the 2nd floor sit on the beams on the 1st floor. If this is the case, the beam that the column sits on is entered in two parts so that the columns fit on the beam and B3 Irregularity occurs. The coordinate of the joint point where these two parts are connected must be the same as the coordinate of the joint point of the column resting on the beam.

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

Good work

 

[ftoprak58]

IN THIS REINFORCEMENT PROJECT, THE SAFETY OF LIFE IS NOT PROVIDED WHEN I PUT CURTAINS ON THE DIRECTION, THERE IS NO PROBLEM, I WANTED TO GET YOUR OPINIONS AND WE CANNOT GET THE ANCHORAGE DETAIL AND WE CANNOT ADD THE BASIC STRENGTHENING

 

[MEHMETSIRAY]

LEVENT BEY I HAVE A PROJECT WITH INCLINED COLUMNS IN BOTH-X AND Y-DIRECTION. I CAN ONLY DEFINE A SLOPE IN THE X-DIRECTION IN THE PROGRAM DO YOU HAVE OTHER SUGGESTIONS...?

 

[HakanŞahin]

LEVENT BEY I HAVE A PROJECT WITH A INVOLVE COLUMN IN BOTH-X AND Y-DIRECTION I CAN ONLY DEFINE A SLOPE IN THE X-DIRECTION DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS...?[/ the topic was explained in the appendix] Mehmet

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

Sample project is attached.

 

[Levent Özpak]

THE STRENGTHENING PROJECT CANNOT PROVIDE LIFE SAFETY WHEN I PLACE CURTAINS IN THE DIRECTION, SO THERE IS NO PROBLEM I WANTED TO RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE ANCHORAGE[/CANNOT ACCEPT THE DETAIL] [CANNOT Acknowledge the ANCHORAGE/DETACLE] CANNOT AGREE

The e-mail you sent to com.tr][email protected][/email] has been answered.

 

[profesyonel]

Hi everyone, I will draw a simple administrative building project, the reinforced concrete part of which will consist of only continuous foundations. I bought the loads that will come to the foundation from the friend who draws steel. However, I do not know how to define these loads on continuous foundations. In a project I did in the past, I defined a 1 m column on the foundation and added the loads to the column as point loads. (I had 1m subbasement, although I don't know how accurate I was when I did this) What should I do in this? Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[mhanifiata]

Again, I suggest you define a colon.

 

[antediluvian35]

Hakan and Levent, after I solved all the errors in a project I solved with idecad static version 7.022, I wanted to select the beam mounting and flat reinforcement diameters as fi 14 only with the reinforcement selection in the reinforced concrete option, and I had the system solved again. It is interesting, but I came across 2 columns giving "B" errors. Isn't this situation abnormal_? I can add my project if you want.

 

[HakanŞahin]

Hakan and Levent Bey, after I solved all the errors in a project I solved with idecad static version 7.022, I wanted to select the beam mounting and flat reinforcement diameters only as fi 14 with the reinforcement selection in the reinforced concrete option and I solved the system again. but I came across 2 columns giving "B" error. Isn't this abnormal_? I can add my project if you want.

Hello, in B (column-beam shear safety) problem, existing reinforcements of beams are important. When you choose 14 assemblies in beams, You also change the existing reinforcement in the support. Since the amount of reinforcement changes, it is not abnormal to have problem B compared to the previous one. See the details of column-beam shear safety in the reinforced concrete dialog. You can also reach the result by multiplying and dividing the given values. Good work

 

[antediluvian35]

Hakan and Levent Bey, after I solved all the errors in a project I solved with idecad static version 7.022, they determined the beam mounting and flat reinforcement diameters only with the reinforcement selection in the reinforced concrete option. I wanted to select it as 14, and I had the system thawed again. It is interesting, but I came across 2 columns giving "B" errors. Isn't this situation abnormal_? I can add my project if you want.

Hello, beam reinforcements are important in B (column-beam shear safety) problem. When you select 14 assemblies on beams, you change the existing reinforcement on the support. Since the amount of reinforcement changes, it is not abnormal for the B problem to occur compared to the previous one. See details of column-beam shear safety in the reinforced concrete dialog. You can get the result yourself by multiplying and dividing the given values. Good work

Thank you, Hakan, but why does the amount of reinforcement (As) change when the diameter changes, after all, the program does the necessary calculation for the same Ace. Does the amount of reinforcement required on the support become different when the diameter is fi 12, and is it different when fi 14 _?

 

[HakanŞahin]

Hakan and Levent Bey, after solving all the errors in a project that I solved with idecad static version 7.022, beam assembly and I wanted to select the flat reinforcement diameters as only fi 14 with the reinforcement selection in the reinforced concrete option and I had the system solved again. Interestingly, but I came across 2 columns with "B" error. Isn't this abnormal_? I can add my project if you want.

Hello, B In the problem of (column-beam shear safety) existing beam reinforcements are important. When you select 14 assemblies in beams, you change the existing reinforcement on the support as well. Since the amount of reinforcement changes, it is not abnormal to have problem B compared to the previous one. See the details of column-beam shear safety in the reinforced concrete dialog. You can also reach the result by multiplying and dividing the values.Good work

Thank you Hakan, but why does the amount of reinforcement (As) change when the diameter changes? After all, the program does the necessary calculation for the same Ace by itself. The amount of reinforcement required on the support is different when the diameter is fi 12, does it become different when fi 14 _?

It can be, for example, 2fi14 when 2fi12. Look at what's available and you'll see

 

[proisa]

Hello, I would like to share a couple of issues... In order not to cause confusion in the above statement, "The mixed system was chosen, the R Coefficient is 6, but the ratio of the sum of the curtain shear forces to the total shear force is less than 2/3." Shouldn't it be written? In mixed systems, the highest value of the R coefficient is already 6. Is there a contradiction in this expression? Directly; "The mixed system has been chosen, but the R coefficient is greater than 6." Is it not correct to write? In such cases, the program does not give an error. "The mixed system has been chosen and the R coefficient is greater than Rnc + 1.5 alphas(Ryp - Rnc)." Don't you need a warning? Good work...

 

[HakanŞahin]

Hi, I would like to share a couple of issues... In order not to cause confusion in the above statement, "The mixed system was chosen, the R Coefficient is 6, but the ratio of the sum of the curtain shear forces to the total base shear force is 2/3' Isn't it necessary to write "less than ten"? In mixed systems, the highest value of the R coefficient is already 6. Isn't there a contradiction in this expression? Wouldn't it be correct to write directly: "The mixed system is selected, but the R coefficient is greater than 6."?[/quote ] According to the regulation, Ryp can be both 6 and 7, the R=7 check is valid if the ryp is written 7. The program accepts ryp=6 (an option was added in the 8th version) Therefore, R>6 is checked under all conditions. As a result, we can say that there is no need for the control you wrote 1. We can note and evaluate the issue

In such cases, the program does not give an error. "The mixed system has been chosen and the R coefficient is greater than Rnc + 1.5 alphas(Ryp - Rnc)." Don't you need a warning? Good work...

It is normal that the program does not give an error here, because the Rnc + 1.5 alfas(Ryp - Rnc) calculation is not a value found at the beginning, but a value found at the end. If the program checks this value and applies it automatically, the alphas will also change each time. For this reason, the user should evaluate the value that the program finds Rnç + 1.5 alphas (Ryp - Rnç) and use it in the calculation accordingly. Good work

 

[profesyonel]

Good work everyone. I guess we can't lock reinforcement on retaining walls after analysis. If it is not a difficult issue, we would like to be able to lock it in the next updates.

 

[muhammet61]

When I click on customize, toolbars, primitive objects (or any tab), the toolbox comes up, but there is a change on the screen, the tool is not fixed to the screen, and it disappears on opening again, what can be done...

 

[cihanonarici]

Unfortunately, in ideStatik 7, straight beams and spring beams are considered as different object classes, especially when drawings of floor teeth supported on spring beams are created, they are drawn as if they are not supported on these beams. In addition, the first defined tooth width in cassette and ribbed floors is always accepted and used according to the first value in calculations and drawings, even if it is changed later.

 

[Levent Özpak]

Unfortunately, in ideStatik 7, straight beams and spring beams are considered as different object classes, especially when drawings of floor teeth supported on spring beams are created, they are drawn as if they are not supported on these beams.

Hello, The situation you mentioned Could you add a project on the subject and explain the situation with a drawing in your opinion?

Also, in cassette and ribbed floors, the first defined tooth width is always accepted as it is, and it is used according to the initial value in calculations and drawings, although it is changed later[/ quote] We couldn't create this situation Can you add a sample project where the problem occurs?

 

[cihanonarici]

I am submitting a draft summarizing both situations. Here, when looking at the cassette drawings, it is shown that the typical beam No. 2, which rests on the spring beams, is drawn without support from both ends in the drawings. Here, as in straight beams, the cross section of the spring beam should be added and the length of the reinforcement should be given accordingly. Secondly, both typical beams were initially defined as 20 cm wide, and there was no problem after analysis. Then, when the typical beam No. 1 was defined as 10 cm and analyzed again, the system detected both typical beams as 10 cm and used this width value for the typical beam No. 2 in the drawing and reinforced concrete table. I haven't tried using a fully rigid diaphragm, maybe it doesn't have these problems, but these problems can occur in the semi-rigid diaphragm calculation. Respects.

 

[Levent Özpak]

I am posting a sketch summarizing both cases. Here first, looking at the cassette drawings, it is shown that typical beam No. 2, which rests on the spring beams, is drawn without support from both ends in the drawings. Here, the cross section of the bow beam is also added, as in straight beams and the length of the reinforcement should have been given accordingly.

The situation you mentioned about the drawing has been included in our notes.

Secondly, both typical beams were first defined as 20 cm wide, there was no problem after the analysis. Then, typical beam No. 1 was defined. When 10 cm was defined and reanalyzed, the system detected both typical beams as 10 cm, and used this width value for typical beam No. 2 in the drawing and reinforced concrete table. I did not try using a fully rigid diaphragm, maybe it may not have these problems, but in semi-rigid diaphragm calculations this is the case.

This situation occurs when the analysis is made according to the semi-rigid diaphragm option. If you are going to make a t diaphragm solution, give the same value for the thickness of the teeth in different directions in cassette flooring. If the teeth in two directions are to be designed with different widths, it would be appropriate to analyze according to the fully rigid diaphragm option. Thanks for your attention. Good work

 

[cihanonarici]

Thanks. By the way, the effect of cassette and ribbed floors on beams; A semi-rigid diaphragm is much more realistic than a full-rigid diaphragm. The reason for this is, of course, the way the analysis system is created and the shell is taken into account together with the system. For this reason, I think I will choose the way of designing with typical beams of the same width. Also, while I have it in mind, let me point out something about the beam reinforced concrete window. Update adjacent support option when changing additional reinforcements of beams is very nice, but this option does not work when this is done collectively. It updates when done one by one. There is also a situation that I think is related to the continuity aspect, which is considered unimportant. Sometimes, while two bow beams sitting on the same column are continuous, the additions of one to the right and the left of the other do not match, and additional calculations can be made for both of them separately. I came across it in a design experiment. Good work.