Performance Analysis

[HakanŞahin]

Good afternoon, I downloaded the new version and I'm working on it. The performance analysis reports were really nice. It wasn't that traceable in the previous version. As a matter of fact, I shared the screenshot below, it showed all the loads in the beam loads section. These quantities look different on the beam. Normally, I just defined the wall load on the beams, no live load. Other than that, there must be loads from the floors, there should be 2 floor loads on a beam (even if it's moving & fixed, it's 4 loads at most). It seems a bit much. What is the reason for this? Did I unwittingly define a double load somewhere? Thank you, Yağmur Can KOÇAK Note: I shared the project as an attachment.

The situation in the report is logically correct because depending on the panel, the beam is as much as the finite number of elements it is divided into parts, load analysis of each part is in question, duplicate load is not taken into account.Finally, in future versions, loads will be single line can be combined together.

 

[yagmurcankocak]

Good afternoon, Since yesterday I've been working on cracked section stiffness and modeling (not) shear walls. In conclusion, your comment made sense and I modified my model accordingly. However, when I had a performance analysis done on the new model, the performance of some beams in the structure was found to be collapsed. Although this is understandable for beams with empty top and bottom, it seemed very unreasonable to me that the beams, on which reinforcement curtains continue to collapse, would appear to collapse. However, I envisaged adding stirrups to these beams and tightening them (as an external reinforcement element). However, these beams remained in the collapse zone. Adding more seismic curtains to the building is not a solution I would like very much (due to architectural concerns). Of course, if I have to, I think about it. But what is your comment on the subject I mentioned above? Is it normal that the damage condition of the beams between two continuous reinforcement curtains can be in the collapse zone? Or am I making a mistake with the modeling of the curtains? Thank you for your comments. Rain Can KOÇAK

 

[Levent Özpak]

Hello, As far as we can see, the beams K116-K127-K128, which are in the collapse zone, do not have reinforcement curtains between the columns and under them. K127-K128 beams also come out in the collapse region due to bending. We did not see a problem in this sense.

 

[yagmurcankocak]

Good afternoon, You are correct in your comment. I said the same thing in my own post. However, the point I do not understand is that the elements with reinforcement curtains both above and below, such as K127-K128, collapse again due to bending moment. As a matter of fact, even if there is a force on the beam that would normally cause the bending limit to be exceeded, shouldn't this load be covered by the reinforcement shear under it? So, in the end, there is a reinforcement curtain (attached to the beam by means of anchors and must be statically working together) under the beam in question. Shouldn't the beam be able to deflect normally? Shouldn't the vertical loads that will cause this deflection be transferred from the beam to the curtain and then to the foundation? Am I thinking wrong? Thank you, Yağmur Can KOÇAK

 

[Levent Özpak]

The concept of bending here is not related to the deflection of the beam under vertical loads. In the performance analysis, element damages are evaluated according to whether the element is ductile or brittle. Elements that are damaged as brittle, in other words, elements whose shear capacity is exceeded are considered collapsed. Damages of ductile elements are graded as minimum damage, significant damage, advanced damage or collapse according to the calculated internal force (moment) levels. K127- K128 beams also emerge in the failure region in terms of moment levels. That is, the earthquake moment/residual capacity ratio is in the failure region. For detailed information, TDY 2007 Chapter 7 and Information Annex-A can be viewed. In addition, reinforcement curtains were not entered above and below the K127-K128 beams in the project. Good work

 

[felamurr]

Hello, In the project I'm working on, while it does not give any problems in normal reinforced concrete analysis, can you help to give a collapse situation in performance analysis, can I get your comments? (project available at link)

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

 

[Levent Özpak]

Hi, In the project I'm working on, while it does not give any problem in normal reinforced concrete analysis, can you help me to give a failure situation in performance analysis, can I get your comments? (the project is available in the link) Hello, First of all, the criteria and logic of new structure analysis and performance analysis are different from each other. The structure, which does not cause problems in normal analysis, may turn out to be unsafe in performance analysis. As for your project; *Reinforcement corrosion factor u zero(0), Insufficient clamping length yield stress factor[ in the Shear properties/Performance tab, which is effective in performance analysis /u] 0.4 entered. These values normally need to be entered as 1. *The title area is not created because the P07 curtain, as it is called on the ground floor ceiling, does not provide the 1/7 ratio. Header area length can be defined by marking the user defined line from the curtain properties/reinforcement tab. *The P04 curtain on the ground floor is defined with two different names on the upper floors. I guess some of the previous warnings about this project were ignored.

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

It doesn't want to meet Performance analysis criteria while designing new building. However, if the performance analysis criteria are also desired, the problematic elements can be identified and the shearing or bending capacities can be increased according to the problem (the situation of the elements being forced without bending or shearing). Good work

 

[yagmurcankocak]

Good evening, I have some questions about performance analysis and preparation of retrofit projects. I am in the final stages of my project. So my questions will be about details. 1. Floors are not taken into account in the performance analysis (in terms of element damage). However, the existing reinforcements in my floors are not in a position to carry the loads on them in a healthy way. So I need to strengthen it. Is there any reinforcement opportunity offered by İdecad for this? Otherwise, I will define additional reinforcement manually, will the program show the anchor display (in the reinforcement plan drawing) for these reinforcements or do I have to mark them all manually? Is there an additional option for this? 2. With the same logic, some of my beams are damaged due to bending. Do I have a chance to enter reinforcement reinforcement in addition to the existing reinforcement (I need to insert longitudinal reinforcement under the beam because it is damaged by bending)? Or do I have to do this by adding it manually? Again, does Idead offer an opportunity for drawing? 3. It does not form hidden columns in the end areas of my reinforcement curtains. Unchecking the "use end-column as header" command in the options doesn't change anything. I wonder if the program automatically takes it into account because all my curtains already have columns at the ends? If I define it manually the distance is fine, it does the drawing. But what I'm curious about is how it perceives the situation when the decision is left to the program. 4. When I look at the column sheathing drawings, I see that the sheathing concrete is not anchored to the existing column and the foundation of the building. Is there an option for this or do I have to add the drawing manually after receiving it? 5. The existing foundation of the building is considered as a singular foundation system. Since the foundation dimensions and reinforcements are insufficient, I will apply a complete raft foundation (in my project, I have never entered single foundations because I completely ignored it). If I define the single foundations in accordance with the original, will the program automatically draw the anchorage between the raft foundation and the single foundations? (Both in terms of building safety and manufacturing problems, I will not remove individual foundations. Instead, I am considering running the new raft together with the existing foundations (with the help of anchors)) 6. The reinforcements of the curtains in the reinforcement project are not constantly drawn on the floors in the program (in my project). However, according to the earthquake code (7.10.5.1), the condition of "continuity of vertical reinforcements to be added to the wall end zone shall be ensured between floors" must be met. In connection with my question #3, could it be because the existing column (and jacketing) reinforcements are continuous? If not, is there an adjustment place in the program to ensure that the reinforcements on the curtains are continuous or do they need to be adjusted manually? I know my questions are a little long. I tried to write as neatly as I could, in an easy-to-understand and easily-answerable way. I would be glad if you help. Note: Since it is my first retrofit project, I would appreciate it if you could comment and share about the project (at least in terms of the logic of the program, since I used it for the first time in retrofit, I should not have missed some points).

 

[Levent Özpak]

Hello,

1. Floors are not taken into account in the performance analysis (in terms of element damage). However, the existing reinforcements in my floors are not in a condition to carry the loads on them properly. Therefore, I need to strengthen them. For this, Idecad offers Is there a possibility of reinforcement? Or I will define additional reinforcement manually, does the program show the anchor display (in the reinforcement plan drawing) for these reinforcements or do I have to manually mark them all? Is there an additional option for this?

there is no possibility

2. With the same logic, some of my beams are damaged due to bending. Do I have a chance to enter reinforcement reinforcement in addition to the existing reinforcement (I need to insert longitudinal reinforcement under the beam because it is damaged by bending)? Or do I have to do this by adding it manually? Again, does Idead offer an opportunity for its drawing?

In addition to the existing reinforcements, there is no reinforcement definition and drawing as reinforcement reinforcement. In the Beam Reinforced Concrete dialog, the reinforcement of the beams can be manually intervened to increase the beam capacity. And the drawings of the added reinforcements can be edited manually.

3. The retrofit doesn't create hidden columns at the ends of my curtains. Unchecking the "use end column as header" command in the options doesn't change anything. I wonder if the program automatically takes it into account because all my curtains already have colons at their ends? If I define the distance manually, it's okay, it draws. But what I'm curious about is how it perceives the situation when the decision is left to the program.

The critical wall height condition required to create the end zone in the reinforcement curtains in the project is not met. TDY 2007 item 3.6.2.1 Therefore the end zone is not created automatically on curtains. If desired, the Head zone length can be edited in the Curtain properties/Reinforcement Tab by selecting the user defined option

4. When I look at the column sheathing drawings, I see that the sheathing concrete is not anchored to the existing column and the foundation of the building. Is there an option for this or do I have to add the drawing manually after receiving it?

You have to add it manually.

5. The existing foundation of the structure is considered as a single foundation system. Since the foundation dimensions and reinforcements are insufficient, I will apply a complete raft foundation (in my project, I did not include single foundations because I completely ignored them). , if I define it in accordance with the original, will the program automatically draw the anchorage between the raft foundation and single foundations?

No.

6. The reinforcements of the curtains in the retrofit project are not constantly drawn on the floors in the program (in my project). However, according to the earthquake code (7.10.5.1), the condition of "continuity of vertical reinforcements to be added to the wall end zone shall be ensured between floors" must be met. In connection with my question #3, could it be because the existing column (and jacketing) reinforcements are continuous? If not, is there an adjustment place in the program so that the reinforcements on the walls are continuous or do they need to be adjusted manually?

In case there are beams on the reinforcement curtains, the longitudinal reinforcements of the curtain walls are not drawn continuously. The beams are anchored. You can make the arrangements you want to make about the drawing by using the two-dimensional possibilities of the program. Good work

 

[NYILMAZ]

There is a 2 storey construction. I want to add a floor on top of the existing two floors. How exactly should the path be followed here? Is it to place reinforcements on the columns on the 1st and 2nd floors, then enter the upper floor according to the new concrete class, and then have a performance calculation as entered? Or should we look at the elements on the upper floor as reinforcement elements? Or, theoretically, should it be thought of as copying the elements below, keeping the concrete class new, and strengthening them as well? How exactly should the theory of this work be? I'm looking for suggestions from friends with ideas. I have done performance analysis before, but I did not add it like this.

 

[saridurmus]

Hi, there is no criterion to use when making such a structure. but I asked a similar question to Semih Hodja in 2000. You can do whatever he says in your mind. My question was more or less the same, I had an additional 1 floor. In my opinion, the best thing to do is enter the existing building, put an additional floor on it, define the material you will use for the additional floors, and enter the values of the existing building below. Do performance analysis accordingly. strengthen according to the results of the current structure. then make the column size differences between the column dimensions of the additional floor and the existing reinforced columns the same or bring them to the same dimensions. As a result of the analysis, you will see that there is not much change. If you ask me, I would say leave it as it saves the columns. I would say that the upper floors should not be more rigid.

 

[suatyy]

Dear NYılmaz, You cannot do this in one analysis. Model the new structure on top of the existing structure. Model the existing structure with the existing building material information and the new upper structure with the new building information. Strengthen the existing structure. Perform a performance analysis, but evaluate only the existing structure and reinforced elements in these analysis results. For the design of the new upper structure, make a separate new structure analysis for the whole model, and here only the new design of the upper structure. While doing this, make sure that there is not too much difference in stiffness between the new floor and the existing one. You don't need to continue the coats, but the curtains.

 

[enginuy]

I am doing performance analysis and risky building analysis for an existing building. As a result of both analyzes, the maximum relative storey drifts and the floor it occurs are different from each other. What could be the reason for this? Also, I entered the amount of reinforcement in columns and beams according to the obtained data and fixed it. After that, does the reinforcement realization coefficient in the performance analysis settings affect the result? What is the difference between reinforcement realization coefficient and defined marginage? Can you give me information about this?. Good luck with.

 

[Levent Özpak]

I am performing a performance analysis and risky building analysis on an existing building. The maximum relative floor offsets and the floor it occurs in are different from each other as a result of both analyzes. What could be the reason for this?

element stiffnesses are different... Element stiffnesses used in performance analysis are 0.40*EI in beams, 0.4-0.8*EI according to axial load on columns 0.3 in beams in risky structure analysis *EI, in columns 0.5*EI

I also entered and fixed the amount of reinforcement in columns and beams according to the data obtained. After that, does the reinforcement realization coefficient in the performance analysis settings affect the result?

Effects .The reinforcement areas calculated according to the reinforcement information entered in the reinforced concrete dialog or the defined percentage are multiplied by the reinforcement realization coefficient and the element capacities are calculated.

What is the difference between the reinforcement realization coefficient and the defined purantages? Can you give some information on this subject?.

When the defined price points are used in the elements, the capacity calculations are calculated according to the purchase price given here instead of the reinforcement entered in the reinforced concrete dialog. In case the reinforcement realization coefficient is entered, the existing reinforcement areas (whether the reinforcement is entered in the reinforced concrete dialog or calculated according to the defined percentage) are multiplied by these coefficients and the capacity calculations are made according to these values.

 

[enginuy]

Thank you very much Mr. Levent, good work..

 

[yagmurcankocak]

Good afternoon, I have a few questions about column sheathing. 1. Do we have a chance to interfere with sheathing reinforcements (it automatically gives 4ø14 as corner reinforcement, but I want 1ø28 for example)? 2. Sheathing always gives double row reinforcement as reinforcement placement, regardless of thickness. When the thickness is 15 or 10 cm, 4 reinforcements appear in the corner (sample drawing attached). However, since there is no space to put a distance between the reinforcements at 10 cm, these reinforcements overlap. Is there a way to interfere with this placement? 3. I made the side column jacketings with 3 sides due to architectural concerns. The detail given by the program is like 4-sided sheathing (with one edge missing). It is not possible for this sheathing to work in a healthy way without anchoring it to the column. It will be healthy to scrape the open ends of the column and connect it mutually with stirrups. Does the program draw such a detail (there may be settings somewhere in the program) or should we draw the detail we deem appropriate by hand? Good work, Yağmur Can KOÇAK

 

[Levent Özpak]

Good afternoon, I have a few questions about column sheathing 1. Do we have a chance to intervene in sheathing reinforcements (it automatically gives 4ø14 as corner reinforcement but I want 1ø28 for example)? 2. Sheathing reinforcement placement It always gives double rows of reinforcement regardless of the thickness. When the thickness is 15 and where it is 10 cm, 4 reinforcements appear in the corner (sample drawing is attached). 3. I made the side column jacketings with 3 sides due to architectural concerns. The detail given by the program is like 4-sided jacketing (with one edge missing). It is not possible for this jacketing to work without anchoring to the column. It would be healthy to scrape it off and connect it with stirrups.Does the program draw such a detail (there may be settings somewhere in the program) or u Should we draw the detail we deem appropriate by hand? Good work, Yağmur Can KOÇAK

Hello, Column jacket reinforcement details are prepared in a uniform manner in the program. Apart from this, a reinforcement detailing can be edited by the user using the 2D possibilities of the program. Good work

 

[yagmurcankocak]

Good afternoon, In a strengthening project I shared in the link below, there are two structures that sit on the same foundation but that I have separated by dilatation (5cm). The small basement structure at the top of the project will be a generator room. In other words, there is no load on it actually, but since it will remain under the ground, I do it with curtains. Only when I put the overall building into the performance analysis in this way, the curtains in the newly built building show a "brittle breakage" problem. It was strange that such a damage occurred on the curtains that were already designed from scratch. Also, since it is independent of the existing structure, the seismic load on them must be almost "0"; 1- Where could the problem originate from? Is it normal that just being on the same foundation is causing such a problem? 2- (depending on your answer) Is the only way to fix this situation is to enlarge the cross-sections of the curtains (which actually have no load on them compared to their size)? Good work, Note: The state of the build without that plugin does not cause any problems in performance analysis.

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

 

[Levent Özpak]

Good afternoon, In a reinforcement project that I shared in the link below, there are two structures sitting on the same foundation but separated by dilatation (5cm). The small basement structure in the project will be a generator room. there is no load actually, but I do it with curtains since it will remain under the ground. Only when I put the overall structure into performance analysis in this way, it shows a "brittle breakage" problem on the curtains in the newly built building. It was strange that such a damage occurred on the curtains that were already designed from scratch. Also, it was independent of the existing structure For this to happen, the earthquake load on them must be almost "0"; 1- Where could the problem come from? Is it normal that it's just sitting on the same foundation causing such a problem? 2- (depending on your answer) The only way to fix this is (actually, on them -relative to their size-) is it to enlarge the cross-sections of the curtains (no load at all) Good work, Note: Add that to the structure Without nti, it does not cause any problems in performance analysis.

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

Hello, The panels mentioned on the 1-basement floor are modeled as shells. Therefore, cracked section stiffnesses are not taken into account in the performance analysis. If the panels are modeled as bar plates and analysis and performance analysis are made, no problem occurs. 2-In order to increase the shear capacity of a panel damaged by shearing (brittle), the diameter of the horizontal body reinforcement can be increased and the reinforcement spacing can be reduced. Notes: - In the project, the boundaries of the D103 slab on the basement floor are formed incorrectly. Therefore, the slab analysis is inaccurate and two different rigid diaphragms cannot be detected in the basement during the analysis. To solve the problem, re-enter the curtain and beam so that it lifts the P103 panel and the K103 beam above it to the nodal point formed. Rebuild the D103 tile. - Performance evaluation of dilatason structures should be done as separate projects. Good work

 

[yagmurcankocak]

Good day, In a strengthening project I shared in the link below, there are two structures that sit on the same foundation but that I separated with dilatation (5cm). The small basement structure at the top of the project will be a generator room. In other words, there is no load on it actually, but since it will remain under the ground, I do it with curtains. Only when I put the overall building into the performance analysis in this way, the curtains in the newly built building show a "brittle breakage" problem. It was strange that such a damage occurred on the curtains that were already designed from scratch. Also, since it is independent of the existing structure, the seismic load on them must be almost "0"; 1- Where could the problem originate from? Is it normal that just being on the same foundation is causing such a problem? 2- (depending on your answer) Is the only way to fix this situation is to enlarge the cross-sections of the curtains (which actually have no load on them compared to their size)? Good work, Note: The state of the build without that plugin does not cause any problems in performance analysis.

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

Hello, The panels mentioned on the 1-basement floor are modeled as shells. Therefore, cracked section stiffnesses are not taken into account in the performance analysis. If the panels are modeled as bar plates and analysis and performance analysis are made, no problem occurs. 2-In order to increase the shear capacity of a panel damaged by shearing (brittle), the diameter of the horizontal body reinforcement can be increased and the reinforcement spacing can be reduced. Notes: - In the project, the boundaries of the D103 slab on the basement floor are formed incorrectly. Therefore, the slab analysis is inaccurate and two different rigid diaphragms cannot be detected in the basement during the analysis. To solve the problem, re-enter the curtain and beam so that it lifts the P103 panel and the K103 beam above it to the nodal point formed. Rebuild the D103 tile. - Performance evaluation of dilatason structures should be done as separate projects. Good work

Mr. Levent, Thank you for your quick reply. The fact that the forum is so fast and functional is a great blessing for us idecad users, we appreciate it. Good work