Opinions questions about using ideCAD Static 7

"sereze":2j0wh9xc" said:
Give the beams not a positive level but a negative level from the upper floor in order to avoid level errors
Click to expand...
of course, negative levels are given to make beams on the same floor one above the other. When you specify a similar floor, the expansions are not on one floor.
 
"maniac":2wvcunv1" said:
hi. I have idestatic version 7.022. I had a problem with this version and previous ones and it still continues. Two beams on the same floor, one intermediate landing beam and one floor floor beam. beams can have different names on the lower floors. While this creates an error, even if we correct the names manually, the name and level errors of these overlapping beams are still seen in the beam expansions. Is there an arrangement for this.
Click to expand...
"manyaksel":2wvcunv1" said:
Of course, negative levels are given in order to make beams on the same floor. When you specify a similar floor, the expansions are not on a single floor.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if it is normal that the Sg pursantage part in the column reinforced concrete section is 0. As a result, there is a definition as "the ratio of the calculated reinforcement amount to the column area". It should not be 0, but in my project, this value is 0 in 5-6 columns. what could be the reason?
 
"izmirlimuhendis":igcvsqhe" said:
I wonder if it is normal that the Sg pursantan part in the column reinforced concrete section is 0. As a result, there is a definition as "the ratio of the calculated reinforcement amount to the column area". It should not be 0, but in my project, this value should be found in 5-6 columns. It turns out 0. What could be the reason?
Click to expand...
SGPursantaj: It is the ratio of the amount of reinforcement calculated from the design effects to the area of the column as a percentage. A value of zero indicates that the column section is not forced. It indicates that the section forces are met only by the concrete area without any reinforcement in the section from a static point of view. the minimum reinforcement is discarded anyway.
 
"HakanŞahin":y307d1vv" said:
"manyaksel":y307d1vv" said:
hello. I have idestatic version 7.022. I had a problem with this version and previous ones and it still continues. two beams on top of each other on the same floor, one intermediate landing beam and one floor floor beam. When naming is made from the lower floor, these beams can take different names on the upper floors. While this creates an error, even if we correct the names manually, the name and level errors of these overlapping beams are still seen in the beam expansions. Is there a regulation for this.
Click to expand...
"manyaksel":y307d1vv" said:
to be able to make beams on the same floor, of course, negative levels are given. When you specify a similar floor, the expansions are not on a single floor.
Click to expand...
In order for us to fully understand your question , when you make the name of the beam like this, can you show it on a sample project like this, but in fact it should have been like this?
Click to expand...
I will attach sample projects. ide trial 1 project ground floor was modeled automatically named and copied to upper floors. floors are exactly the same. beam expansion similarly I defined it as similar to the ground floor. There is no problem with the k05 intermediate beam. The ones after the ground floor are named as k05 beams. The k06 beam is named as the k05 beam. I think it is the reinforcement of the k05 in reinforcement. Idea 2, the ground floor was modeled, copied to the upper floors, and automatic naming was done on the ground floor. intermediate beam There is no problem with the names (k05), but the names of the floor level (k06) beams are k09 after the ground floor. The name k09 is not visible in the beam extensions. There are nouns followed by k06 over k05 in eneme 1. These are simple models. naming complex models takes a long time to correct one by one. for your information..
 
"manyaksel":2mxrdfj6" said:
I will add sample projects. ide trial 1 project ground floor is modeled automatically and copied to upper floors. floors are exactly the same. I defined the beam opening as similar to the ground floor. There is no problem with the k05 intermediate beam. k06 beam The ones after the ground floor are named as k05 beams. I think it is definitely the reinforcement of k05 in reinforcement.
Click to expand...
Your statement about similar floor beam expansion has been included in our notes.
ide experiment 2 is ground floor modeled, copied to upper floors and automatic naming on ground floor There is no problem in the names of the intermediate beams (k05), but the names of the floor level (k06) beams are k09 after the ground floor. The name k09 is not visible in the beam extensions. There are names that continue k06 over k05 in experiment 1. These are simple models. Nomenclature in complex models It takes a long time to fix one by one.. for your information..
Click to expand...
In the Autoname Objects dialog, "Collect mismatched objects from object names on other floors. If the" option is not checked, the beam K06 on the ground floor is also called K06 on the other floors. Good work
 
"desgilad":31nyjr4n" said:
shearing, torsion, bending seem to be zero in continuous fundamental analysis.Can you help me.It's the first time I've had it.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Click to expand...
When I analyzed the project you sent, I couldn't see the situation you mentioned. Other Notes: -It would be appropriate to model the basement perimeter walls as shells. -I suggest you give the same name to the continuous foundation beam parts divided between the columns. -Connect the continuous foundations to the panels at the joint point (There is no joint point on the panel at the point where TK19 connects to P012)
 
The file we saved with the old version in ide8 and opened in 7 says the file could not be loaded and the computer locks up. There is no other choice but to reset. I have attached an example file.
 
"izmirlimuhendis":31atu6n9" said:
ide8 also says that the file we opened with the old version could not be loaded and the computer locks up. I have no choice but to reset it. I have created an example file attached.
Click to expand...
Before saving the project as the old version, delete the sections and material of the steel objects in the tree. Good work
 
I am also building the existing pool with ide architecture 8.5 and reinforced concrete 8.5, but again it says the number of dynamically taken into account is insufficient.. Shall we define the curtain and floor of the pool or does it define it automatically..
 
"raishin":149fpx6m" said:
I also build an existing pool with ide architecture 8.5 and reinforced concrete 8.5, but again it says the number of modes included in the dynamic account is insufficient.. Shall we define the curtain and floor of the pool or does it define it automatically..
Click to expand...
Pool There is no possibility of reinforcement design and drawing in the pool created with the command. You receive the mode insufficiency warning because the carrier element is not defined. If the pool is rectangular, you can model it with beamless raft foundations and panels, and affect soil and water loads.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Good afternoon.. In our project designed as a business center, we have designed a sloping floor (car park ramp) extending from the 2nd basement floor to the 1st basement floor ceiling. Although we have made all the data entries, we get the errors that the KB2B184 beam for the 2nd basement floor is at the wrong elevation, and the DB1A61 and 63 floors are incorrectly inclined at the 1st basement floor in the geometry control. We request your assistance regarding the issue.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
"infernal":3izmk8do" said:
good day.. In our project, which is designed as a business center, we have designed an inclined floor (car park ramp) extending from the 2nd basement floor to the 1st basement floor ceiling. Although we have made all data entries, we have designed the 2nd basement under geometry control. We get the errors that the KB2B184 beam for the 1st floor is at the wrong level, and the DB1A61 and 63 floors are incorrectly inclined in the 1st basement floor. We request your help on the subject.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Click to expand...
Slabs with incorrect slope in the geometry control are connected to the beams at the floor of the floor. However, on the empty side, it is defined by the slab edge. For identification, since there cannot be a slab edge under the beam, define 1 cm inside for the slab edge For example, the lower edge of the 1st basement D61 should not be connected with K3, and the right side should not be connected with K180. If you delete K3 or K180, you will be able to see that D61 is also deleted. Alternatively, there is no place to deal with the slab edge You can enter the ramps with the ladder command and apply a semi-rigid diaphragm solution. We can provide information on what to pay attention to in such projects via remote access. Make an appointment by calling our Bursa office when you are convenient. After the connection is established, the issues that you need to fix on your project will be explained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top