Opinions questions about using ideCAD Static 7

[gunner]

When you open the properties of the raft flooring, there are fixed and live load lines in the general settings tab. The G value there = basic self weight+given fixed load Q value shows the entered live load.

that's not what I meant. I asked about the g and q values of the raft foundation from the superstructure. If you have already noticed, the stresses in the s001 and s003 and s002 and s004 raft tiles, which are completely similar geometrically, are not the same.

 

[proisa]

When you open the properties of the raft flooring, there are fixed and live load lines in the general settings tab. The G value there = foundation self weight + the given fixed load Q value shows the entered live load.

That's not what I meant. I asked the g and q values of the raft foundation from the superstructure. If you have already noticed, the stresses on the s001 and s003 and s002 and s004 raft floors, which are completely similar geometrically, are not the same.

To see the effects taken from the superstructure, the stresses are not the same. In frame mode, you can view the raft tiling results for different combinations, or you can view the raft tiling report.

 

[Levent Özpak]

good day, how can I find out where the values I circled based on what I have done, where do I need to check in the report or 3d frame? this is the project link:

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

G and Q on rafter mat basically, It shows the fixed and live load coming from the superstructure. It is calculated automatically by the program as a result of the analysis. The stress control on the Raft Plate is made automatically by looking at the sum of the G and Q written here. These values are also printed under the Load Title in the Raft Foundation Static and Reinforced Concrete Calculation Report.

 

[eraycnar]

The problem of insufficient slab thickness of the raft foundation I draw two raft foundations in the same dimensions and I do not load on them, I draw one in parts and the other as a whole, the one I drew in parts does not give an error, but the slab thickness I drew as a whole says insufficient, all loads have the same vertical and horizontal distance Why am I getting such an error though?

 

[Levent Özpak]

Re: The problem of insufficient slab thickness of the raft foundation

I draw two raft foundations in the same dimensions and I do not load on them, I draw one in parts and the other as a whole. it says slab thickness is insufficient, why do i get such an error even though the vertical and horizontal distances are the same for all loads?

*The distance between the columns is checked for the clear span value (Ln) in the raft slab thickness control. *With the Reinforced Concrete Calculation Axle Edit command, it is possible to intervene in the line of the reinforcement axles -clear clearance for thickness control- Note: The program does not make the basic solution without superstructure. Good work

 

[illaga]

In the Reinforced Concrete Calculation report, floor names are not written under the beam reinforced concrete calculation title. The axle appears as undefined beams. What is the cause and solution?

 

[Levent Özpak]

In the Reinforced Concrete Calculation report, the floor names are not written under the beam reinforced concrete calculation heading. The axis appears as undefined beams. What is the reason and solution?

The axis may not be drawn in the same direction as the beams in the project. If you add the project, we can examine it in more detail .

 

[grkm]

I just downloaded idecad and while I was playing around, I came to the basics. When I wanted to lay a raft base, I saw that there were spaces at the bottom of some columns as in the link

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

what is the cause and how to fix it? Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[Levent Özpak]

I just downloaded idecad and came to the foundation while I was playing around. When I want to lay a raft foundation,

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

link I saw that there are gaps under some columns, such as. What is the reason and how to fix it? Thank you in advance for the help.

The image in the picture you added occurs in a hidden and solid model. When looking at the basic results graph from the 3D frame mode in the perspective window, if the columns are connected correctly, the basic data it means there is no problem in the entrance. Good work

 

[epoxi]

Mr NYILMAZ Hello, I think your project is not completed. I wanted to warn you anyway. 1- There is a support error in some of your cantilever beams on each floor (for example, the floor K45 is not supported on the beams in the middle of the beam.) 2- 2nd floor K98 beam is not supported on the column. All of these type of beams should be checked. You will have a different solution from the static system seen on the screen. 3- K84 beam is stuck very close to S9 column. It would be better if you enlarge the column to the beam. 4- your ladder loads are missing 5- if there is no special condition in your flooring You'd better make 12 cm instead of 10 cm. 6- Are your wall loads the same on all beams? 7- You can reduce the attic loads Easy, good work. Ünver ÖZCAN

also says that the thickness of the wall at the end of the curtain wall cannot be less than 1\15 of the storey height also

 

[NYILMAZ]

Mr NYILMAZ Hello, it seems that your project is incomplete. Still, I wanted to warn you. 1- You can reduce the loads of your cantilever beams on each floor....... ..... 2 - ...... ..... 7- You can reduce the attic loads. Have a nice day. Ünver ÖZCAN

also says that the thickness of the curtain wall at the end of the curtain cannot be less than 1\15 of the storey height. But still, thank you for your answer to inform others.

 

[epoxi]

Of course, it's an old topic, but I wrote it for confirmation in the sense of clarification of a situation. Is it possible even if we do not take this warning into account? I thought so, but now I think it should be taken into account. Because I often encounter this warning these days. respects

 

[muhammetboztoprak]

hello, Aksaray municipality asked me to create a frame by passing a beam from the ceiling between two columns in the beamed floor I made. Is there such a thing in the regulation? good work.

 

[NYILMAZ]

is an old topic, but I wrote it for confirmation in the sense of clarifying a situation. I thought, is it possible to ignore this warning, but now I think it should be taken into account. Because I often encounter this warning these days. Regards

Yes, you're right. As you said, in article 3.6.2 of the regulation, "........ the thickness of the wall at the end of the wall is 1/15 of the floor height and 200 mm. It will not be less than . ............. Curtain end regions can be formed within the thickness of the wall end region itself, or they can be arranged inside the other wall that joins the wall. "It is called . There is no such thing as ignoring an issue in the regulation. The article is not open to interpretation anyway.

 

[epoxi]

Thank you for your comments. However, this warning is given in the geometry control in the program, but it is not taken into account as an error in the report, so how would it be appropriate not to meet this condition, have a good day for an engineer.

 

[proisa]

We already receive the friction cut report on demand. Calculation values are written, but no check mark is given as to which curtain meets the friction cut or not. It would be better if this control result was printed in the report instead of checking one by one...

 

[gunner]

have a nice day. In some of my projects, I get a b error in the beam-column junctions. We have a chance to eliminate this negativity by playing with concrete class, beam width or column depth. What caught my attention is that when we change the beam direction, this error seems to disappear. Is it correct to do this in columns with b error? What can we do to change the beam direction?

 

[abaci09]

When you change the beam direction, the beam changes from a continuous beam to a simple beam. this will make a difference in terms of as1 as2 fields. This will reduce the as1+as2 field. As a result, column beam safety will be ensured. But you will have made a mistake.

 

[epoxi]

first of all thank you very much for your answers, Mr. Levent. 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 the 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? Earthquake loadings are taken into account in the reinforcement calculations on the rafter raft foundation. Stress control is done only for vertical loads. The program algorithm is like this right now. In addition, in TDY 2007, a superstructure interactive solution is requested on C and D group floors. 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

very sorry, just asking to clarify something; as a result, we will have to use a raft foundation in order to be able to make a solution with superstructure interaction in the c and d group soil classes. Is it not possible to solve the structure with a continuous foundation in terms of being economical? Will we solve it with a raft?

 

[NYILMAZ]

............................ very sorry asking to clarify one thing, finally c and It means that we will have to use a raft foundation in order to make a solution with a superstructure interaction in the d group floor classes. Is it not possible to solve the structure with a continuous foundation in terms of being economical? ........

As far as I know, there is no superstructure interactive solution in beamed raft, but in continuous foundation solution, superstructure interactive calculation is in question.