!OUR NON-ECONOMIC PPROJECT!

C

canlarins

New Member
The contractor stated that our project is not economical; he says that another firm has solved the project with 30 tons of iron in a building with an area equal to half the building area. Our project did not fall below 107 tons, no matter what we did. Why this difference? Believe me, contractors turn to static project bureaus that use other software just for this reason. Friends, we are adding the project, we are waiting for your suggestions. Click the link below to download the compressed version of the project.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Click the link below to download the full version of the project.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Hello there; I made an analysis by making a few changes in your project and the result was: What I Changed: - Min. Span Tensile Pursantage for Beams =0.001 - Pursantage values for Raft Foundation 0.0018 , 0.0018 , 0.0017 , 0.0017 - Working distances for raft foundation calculation axles were arranged from seven in accordance with the project. - The live load definitions on beams have been cancelled. - The wall loads on the last floor (attic) beams have been removed. - Ø12 has been added to the selection of Reinforcement in Beams - Ø12 has been added to the selection of Additional Reinforcement in Raft Basis.
 
Sn: Thank you very much for your interest in the 2m project. We saw 92 tons of reinforcement in the quantity we received following our analysis. We will check the compliance of the purchases with the regulations and convey the result to the contractor company. We are waiting for your evaluations about the pursantajlar. We are truly grateful. IdeYAPI family supports each other thanks to this forum; That's why they call it DIFFERENCE. We wish you convenience and success in your business..
 
Hello there; Beam min. Clarity Tensile allowance is calculated automatically by taking into account the concrete and reinforcement class used by the program, the calculated allowance value is compared with the min.pursantage value defined by us as the user, and the larger one is used. Min.pursantage value defined in the program (0.003) corresponds to C35-S420 materials. When we change this value to 0.001, the program will use the purchase value that is suitable for the material used in the project, as it will be larger. This will give us an advantage in beam reinforcements and indirectly in column-beam shear safety controls. As for the raft flooring pursantags; The regulation states that in slabs running in two directions, the reinforcement margins in the X and Y directions should be at least 0.0015 for each of the lower and upper reinforcements, and the total pursantage of both lines should be 0.0035. Therefore, the min Pursantage values that can be selected for the X and Y directions can be 0.00175. I define it as 0.0018 in the Prime direction and 0.0017 in the other direction. It is possible to see all these values I have mentioned from the TS500. Best regards.
 
The information you provide with the provisions of the regulation completely overlaps. Our project is not economical because we use program default values. thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top