German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish Hello, I have a few questions about the picture I have attached to my question; 1) Is it necessary to define a title for 25/170 P2 element in the attached panel element? (It is not required by the regulation, but what are your comments about) 2) The expression "panel" in the regulation is not used other than the prefabricated concrete panel. The regulation did not make an explanation for the curtains that do not provide the 1/7 ratio, but this ratio is provided in the plan. 3) As I mentioned in 1, when I define the header region on the P2 panel, excessive shear force is received, sometimes we were defining the header region in the drawings for elements close to 1/7, were we doing it wrong? Best regards
Panel
- Thread starter cakilomer
- Start date
Hello. According to what I understand from the current regulations; 1. The P2 element is not a curtain but a column. Its length is less than 7 times its width. As such, it should be considered as a column and equipped as a column. (Min pursanaj 1%) However, if there is no obstacle due to the floor height, the width of the P2 element can be reduced to 20 cm and equipped as a curtain. But in this case, if the building is multi-storey (the regulation states the conditions of the header area), a header area should be created. 2. Vertical carriers that do not provide the 1/7 ratio are considered as columns. 3. P1 and P11 elements can be considered as the header area of the walls to which they are connected, or they can be equipped as columns. In addition, TDY Article 3.4.3.1 (beam anchorage length) control should be made for discontinuous beams connected to this type of shear walls. This control can be activated from Reinforced Concrete---> Beam parameters. ideCAD performs its automatic control and gives an error (ab) in the elements that do not provide it.
Hello, first of all, thank you for your answer. If I enter the P2 element as a panel and define the title region, am I doing something against the regulations. Moreover, when I enter it as a column, I need to make a bar model and this would be untrue for me. * Considering that this system will work as a whole, would it be wrong to model all shells and define header regions? *Also, what should be the solution when idecad (ab) gives an error in anchor length verification? Best regards
P2 element again You can model it as a shell and manually adjust the shear reinforcements to be 1%. Thus, you can still model the system as a whole, but the rules in the regulation in terms of reinforcement conditions are as I said. the number of them can be increased or the width of the support element is increased. no."cakilomer":xxcwqbed" said:
If I am not mistaken, reinforcement information is not given for the panels that do not provide the 1/7 ratio in the regulation, do you have any information about this? Entering the arms that I deem appropriate as column reinforcement, defining the head region to the 25/170 section and modeling them all as shells. Thank you for your interest
First of all, I wish you a good work. We talked about this subject with Mr. Levent from coincidence bursa technical service today, and thank you for his interest; I would like to share. I had the same problem as well, it was a small 25/50 curtain. I decided to make a polygon column because it did not meet the requirements of the regulation and 7 times the width in the geometry control.
No, the fact that you have defined the curtain object does not mean that it is a curtain. The program checks whether there is a screen by looking at the dimensions of the entered element. Whether 1/7 or more large column object is entered. (perceives it as a curtain) whether a 1/7 ratio small curtain object is entered (perceives it as a column) The difference is, when modeling, a single-point bar element or a multi-point shell element in load transfer as load transfer.
Nedim brother, then I don't want to enter polygon columns, I want to design it as a panel. If the program detects the part that does not provide 1/7 directly as a column, there is no problem. When I enter it as a polygon column, it naturally gives an unsupported beam error to the beam I defined in between, because it sees the same column, and the reasonable thing for me is to enter it as a panel."NYILMAZ":25ccryke" said:
As for the R coefficient, I think that if you get 7 for curtain 7 columns and 8 curtains, you will stay on the safer side. This is what nedim brother and levent brain say, the program calculates according to the ratio of 1/7... I designed it as a polygon column in three parts in my own project and immediately I put a curtain next to it, instead of defining a title on the polygon curtain, I modeled with a polygon column and a curtain next to it.
Although it is important to provide 1/7 ratio, it would be appropriate to model these types of objects as shells, so it would be beneficial to model them as curtains. If it was 25-175, it would work as a curtain, but when it becomes 25/170, does it work like a column? In TDY 1975, this rate is 6.7.2. This ratio was 1/5, there were 20/100 sections. Although it would be more correct to be 1/7, I think 1/6.8 is not too bad at your ratio 
When it comes to the curtain end region, why is the curtain end region placed, the aim is ductility. Our regulation creates a high ductile curtain system under the name of normal ductile curtain. If you examine the regulations of other countries, the end zone is not created in a normal ductile wall and the reinforcement is not tightened. But since TDY Turkey knows its practices and the quality of workers, it forces normal ductile curtains to be modeled as high ductile curtains. If I were you, I would model that wall as a shell and create an end zone without looking at the ductility level of the building, as I did in my own projects, and I would have this end region connected in an L shape to work with the other curtain, that is, I would create a polygonal curtain end region. This is how I do it where I do it, and it's an easy solution for the blacksmith. (the master also connects the end regions in L shape and puts them in place and connects the other part separately) Regulations give us a min. has set the conditions depending on experiences, experiments, etc. However, knowing why these conditions are set is the condition of engineering. If we know why those limits are set, we can set our own limits. good work
When it comes to the curtain end region, why is the curtain end region placed, the aim is ductility. Our regulation creates a high ductile curtain system under the name of normal ductile curtain. If you examine the regulations of other countries, the end zone is not created in a normal ductile wall and the reinforcement is not tightened. But since TDY Turkey knows its practices and the quality of workers, it forces normal ductile curtains to be modeled as high ductile curtains. If I were you, I would model that wall as a shell and create an end zone without looking at the ductility level of the building, as I did in my own projects, and I would have this end region connected in an L shape to work with the other curtain, that is, I would create a polygonal curtain end region. This is how I do it where I do it, and it's an easy solution for the blacksmith. (the master also connects the end regions in L shape and puts them in place and connects the other part separately) Regulations give us a min. has set the conditions depending on experiences, experiments, etc. However, knowing why these conditions are set is the condition of engineering. If we know why those limits are set, we can set our own limits. good workI totally agree with what you said. My purpose in making this system is to make the whole system work together as a panel, the corners are the column in the middle of the curtain or the column in the corner, this is unengineering in my opinion because the deformation of the column is different as modeling, it acts like a bar element. It is different. I think this is not against the regulation we made, because the regulation has always spoken on behalf of rectangular section elements. As I have shown the reinforcement shape in the appendix, I made the design and its suitability can be discussed. In my opinion, the optimum solution should be this way. (The other corner part has been removed due to architectural reasons.) Regards"siromar":107nggys" said:Although it is important that it provides the ratio of 1/7, it would be appropriate to model these types of objects as shells, so it would be useful to model them as curtains. If 25-175 would work as curtains, 25/170 would work as a column? What is 5cm up to now... is such a logic engineered? In TDY 1975, this ratio, see article 6.7.2. This ratio was 1/5, there were 20/100 sections. Although it would be more accurate to be 1/7, your ratio was 1/ I don't think 6.8 is too bad