Penthouse

[tevekkül]

When a project modeled in ide 5 is opened with ide 6, some column-beam connections do not hold the nodes. For example, when I open the attached project in ide 5, there is no problem, but when I open it with ide 6, the K23 beam does not hold the column on the 3rd floor.

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

(I tried to load the project directly from the forum, there was a problem I had to use rapid) is a separate question... when we enter the project, it perceives that floor as a normal floor according to earthquake regulations and makes irregularity investigations. Since the area used on that floor is very small compared to the normal floor, results such as relative floor drifts and soft floors occur. I don't know if the regulation includes the basement and roof in irregularity controls, but I ask you to comment on this... and when a solution is made by accepting more than one rigid diaphragm on the same floor, in some of these diaphragms; B2 irregularity, story drifts and second order effects exceed the maximum limit. When we want to solve this solid as a single diaphragm, this problem does not occur...

 

[HakanŞahin]

Hello,

When a project modeled in ide 5 is opened with ide 6, some column-beam connections do not hold the nodes. For example, when I open the attached project in ide 5, there is no problem, but when I open it with ide 6, there is no problem. K23 beam on the 3rd floor does not hold the column.

Our software team will investigate this specific issue of your project. Thank you for your report. For now in version 6, reconnect that beam to the column with node edit.

a separate question... when we enter the project, it perceives that floor as a normal floor according to earthquake regulations and makes irregularity investigations. Since the area used on that floor is very small compared to the normal floor, results such as relative floor drifts and soft floors occur. I don't know if the regulation includes the basement and roof in irregularity controls, but I ask you to comment on this... and when a solution is made by accepting more than one rigid diaphragm on the same floor, in some of these diaphragms; B2 irregularity, story drifts and second order effects exceed the maximum limit. when we want to solve this floor as a single diaphragm, this problem does not occur...

When a floor is defined in both 5 and 6 in the program, you also define a rigid diaphragm. However, one of the innovations of the 6 version compared to the 5 version is to accept the floors defined at different levels within the same number as a rigid diaphragm. The program asks the project designer for the approval of this acceptance. In your system, there are three different floor masses defined in the attic and standing independently of each other. Therefore, the program asks you what you want to do during the analysis phase. At this stage, as the project designer, we should comment on how the system can work. We can also analyze such small slabs by dividing them into rigid diaphragms, or we can solve them as a single rigid diagram. However, obviously, when we solve 3 different rigid diaphragms, we define an inconsistent system according to TDY. We have four options in terms of the program (in version 6): 1. Instead of defining the attic as a separate floor, to include the existing floors in the attic floor with the diaphragm of a lower floor and connect them all to the same rigid diaphragm 2. Define the attic as a separate floor as you did in your current project , to include floors at low elevation in the rigid diaphragm of that floor. Solving them all in the attic rigid diaphragm 3. Including the slabs at -175 level relative to the attic floor to the rigid diaphragm of a lower floor. Incorporating the slab at the roof level into the attic diaphragm 4. Not making a loft... The program allows for the organization of all of them. The important thing is to examine the compliance of the system with the regulations. The choice is yours.. I wish you good luck...

 

[Levent Özpak]

is a separate question... when we enter the project, that floor is perceived as a normal floor according to the earthquake regulations and it performs irregularity investigations. Since the area used on that floor is very small compared to the normal floor, especially relative floor offsets and soft floors are required. I don't know if the regulation includes the basement and roof in irregularity controls, but I would like you to comment on this... and when a solution is made by accepting more than one rigid diaphragm on the same floor, in some of these diaphragms; B2 irregularity, relative floor displacements and The second order effects exceed the maximum limit. When we want to solve this floor as a single diaphragm, this problem does not occur...

In addition to the information given by Hakan Bey, If the floor area you define as the attic floor is very small and you think that it does not form a rigid diaphragm, In this case, instead of entering the floors at this level as a separate floor, by giving elevation to the related elements on a lower floor. You can enter and select these tiles at different elevations and mark the Rigid aperture creation line in the Tile Settings/static tab. Considering that floors connected to beams defined on the same floor but at different elevations can be created as separate rigid diaphragms, an option is offered to the engineer during the analysis. Vertical regularity checks such as relative storey drift and B2 are also made between rigid diaphragms. When a solution is made considering that the attic floor has 3 different rigid diaphragms in your project, it gives a relative translation warning because the effective translation values in the 2nd and 3rd rigid diaphragms are large, and B2 irregularity occurs because the displacement of the rigid diaphragms in the attic is larger than the 7th floor. (By the way, B2 irregularity is an irregularity related to the reason for choosing the calculation method. This irregularity is not important when dynamic analysis is done.) Good work

 

[tevekkül]

b2 disorder requires dynamic analysis and the beta coefficient used in the method of combining modes according to TDY 2.8.5; 0.9 is taken for buildings with at least one of the a1, b2 or b3 type irregularities.

 

[HakanŞahin]

b2 irregularity requires dynamic analysis and the beta coefficient used in the method of combining modes according to TDY 2.8.5 is taken as 0.9 for buildings with at least one of the a1, b2 or b3 type irregularities.

Yes, all of these are taken into account automatically in the program anyway... The information of irregularities and the beta coefficient value can be seen in detail in the earthquake regulation general report, dynamic analysis report or building summary information reports...

 

[tevekkül]

B2 irregularity is an irregularity related to the reason for choosing the calculation method. This irregularity is of no importance when dynamic analysis is performed.

B2 irregularity only changes the reason for choosing the calculation method and the beta coefficient according to TDY. Since dynamic analysis is performed in all cases, there is no necessity to correct this irregularity.

Substituting 0.9 for beta instead of 0.8 causes the base shear force to increase by about 10%. Therefore, it creates a disadvantage for the system. This is the point I wanted to make.

 

[HakanŞahin]

Of course, the purpose of those messages was to emphasize that it is not necessary for TDY to try to fix the problem. If the system does not work economically, it may be the designer's choice to eliminate the B2 irregularity... However, such a preference may mean making a complete change in the carrier system. After all, you don't have to fix it in terms of regulation.