Performance Analysis

[Gokhan_Concept]

Hello everyone, I need to make a performance analysis for a building built in 1985. First of all, I did the necessary things in the light of the detailed information given in the other topics in the forum for performance analysis (modelling, entering the reinforcements and entering the locking materials, etc.), and I chose 1975 as the earthquake code and then performance analysis and I had a risky building analysis done. My question is; Even if we get reports from normal elective reports, not the 1975 regulation, even if we do it with the settings we use when solving new projects today, it reports and there is no problem. Everything is fine. Officially ready to prepare the drawings... But if we go back and look at the performance analysis and risky building analysis, these are the ones that interest us; both give the results of MIGRATION and RISKY BUILDING, respectively. Isn't there a contradiction here? How does the reporting project yield MIGRATION in its performance analysis? The elements that report in the 2007 regulation and whose reinforcements are fixed, collapse with the 1975 regulation, which is more flexible. Sorry if I said something wrong, I'm doing the renovation project for the first time, it never occurred to me... This is my first performance analysis attempt, maybe there is just a setting I've made wrong... Thanks in advance.

 

[NYILMAZ]

First of all, I would like to state that it doesn't matter if you mark the 75 regulation vs. Afterwards, the calculation method specified in chapter 7 of the earthquake regulation is not the same as the calculation method of the regulation that we normally calculate. Therefore, as you said, in the performance analysis, although the building is in the collapse zone in general, it rarely fails when the calculation is made as if it is new according to the earthquake regulations. In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges as a calculation method. As far as I know, a study is being done on this. The regulation will be rearranged. (I still think it is useful to look at the project)

 

[HakanŞahin]

Hello, If you add the project, we can see if there is a situation with data entry...

 

[Gokhan_Concept]

First of all, I would like to point out that it doesn't matter if you mark regulation 75 etc. when performing performance analysis. Then, the calculation method specified in the earthquake regulation chapter 7 and the calculation method of the regulation we normally calculate are not the same. Although it is generally in the collapse zone, it rarely gives an error when the calculation is made as if it is new according to the earthquake regulation. So actually you are comparing apples and pears as a calculation method. As far as I know, there is a study on this. The regulation will be revised. I think)

Thanks for your interest, Mr. NYILMAZ, but we agree on what you said, I know him, but that's the point that doesn't fit my logic anyway.

 

[Gokhan_Concept]

Hi, If you add the project, we can see if there is a situation regarding data entry...

Hakan, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look because I'm completely blocked. The ground floor of the building was built in 1985, In other words, it was not ready-mixed concrete, it was kneaded in a car and non-ribbed iron reinforcements were used. The 1st and 2nd floors were directly connected to the column shoots left on the roof of the ground before and were built with C25 and ribbed iron in 2005. According to the project of the building in 85, the building was already built as 4 floors (8 houses). but only the ground floor was built, then the other 1st and 2nd floors were built in 2005. Now the last 4th floor is required to be built. You will see in the project that the ground floor ceiling was made as a brick hollow block. and 2nd floors are as I entered, not filled with hollow blocks and one more floor will be copied from the type floor (from the 1st floor) (the new floor to be built) Thank you very much indeed

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

and while I found you, this last ide we upgraded to version 7.022, the overdue projects are huge MB happens in It was impossible to attach to the mail. Apart from that, it takes a day to upload some big projects, 700-800 MB ide files. Will there be any change to this? It wasn't like that before.

 

[HakanŞahin]

Hi everyone, I need to do a performance analysis for a building built in 1985. First of all, I did the necessary things in the light of the detailed information given in the other topics in the forum for performance analysis (modelling, entering the reinforcements, entering locking materials, etc.) I chose 1975 or something and then I had performance analysis and risky building analysis done. My question is that if we were to get reports from normal elective reports, not the 1975 regulation, even if we do it with the settings we use when analyzing new projects today, there is no problem and everything is fine. ready to prepare... But if we go back and look at the performance analysis and risky building analysis, which are of interest to us, they both give the results of MIGRATION and RISKY BUILDING, respectively. Isn't there a contradiction at this point? How does the reporting project give the result of MIGRATION in its performance analysis? and reinforcements fixed elements as well as more flexible It migrates with the 1975 regulation. Sorry if I said something wrong, I'm doing the renovation project for the first time, it didn't come across... This is my first performance analysis attempt, maybe there's a setting I've made wrong... Thanks in advance.

Hello, Mr. Gökhan, You entered the building importance factor as zero. As a result of entering zero, you are solving the building without an earthquake. However, as you know, performance analysis is an evaluation of earthquake effects. Enter the structure importance factor of 1. When you analyze according to the 2007 regulation, you will see that there are problems in some columns and beams, as in the performance analysis.

and while I found you, let me ask you this last ide, we have upgraded to version 7.022, the current projects are in very large MB. It was impossible to add them to the mail. Apart from that, it takes one day to upload some big projects, 700-800 MB ide file. Will there be any changes to it? It wasn't like that before..

We didn't encounter such a problem in 7.022. The size of the file depends on the number of elements and joint points. Especially in semi-rigid diaphragm solutions, the number of nodes is compared to the fully rigid diaphragm solution. In order for us to evaluate the issue, we kindly ask you to attach a sample project whose file size was not large in the old version, but whose file size grew as much as you mentioned after saving it in 7.022. Good work.

 

[NYILMAZ]

Dear Gökhan, If you are doing a performance analysis, you should take cores from the structure and subtract the standard deviation from the mean of these cores in the current situation and find the calculation core value. This method is not correct. It is not appropriate in terms of regulations to define different concrete materials for each floor while entering the available data. Because the regulation does not seek the quality of each of your employees. He does not say that the lowest quality concrete in the building is the concrete of the whole building. He says, create a strength value in the building at extreme values, this value may be very low or high. This is your account value. I suggest you read the article in the link below.

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

Therefore, the difference in concrete quality between the lower floor and the upper floor does not comply with the conditions specified in section 7. When you look at it, the collapse problem is caused by the elements on the ground floor. Also, stirrup tightening is seen in both beams and columns. Have you tested their presence in place? Did they tighten stir-fries in 1985? Did you realize these by stripping concrete on columns and beams? You said to take into consideration the kiosks in the calculation, were they making kiosks in 1985? In addition, as far as I can see, even when the calculation is made in this form, it gives a warning of insufficient reinforcement in many columns and beams according to the 2007 regulation. Am I seeing something wrong? I did the calculation without adding a floor yet. I just selected the 2007 and mod merge option. (of course, including the building importance factor, even when the building importance factor is zero, it gives errors in the columns and beams) I think the project should be examined a little more. It is not correct to look at (existing) project information in data collection. Good luck with.

 

[Gokhan_Concept]

Dear Gökhan, If you are doing a performance analysis, you should take cores from the building and subtract the standard deviation from the average of these cores and find the calculation core value. This method is not correct. It is in terms of regulation that you define different concrete materials for each floor while entering the existing data. because the regulation does not look for the quality of each and every member of yours. It does not say that the lowest quality concrete in the building is the concrete of the whole building. I recommend

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

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

 

[Gokhan_Concept]

We did not encounter such a problem in

7.022. The file size depends on the number of elements and nodes. Especially in semi-rigid diaphragm solutions, the number of nodes increases considerably compared to full-rigid diaphragm solutions. In order for us to evaluate the issue, we kindly ask you to attach a sample project whose file size was not large in the old version, but whose file size grew as you mentioned after saving it in 7.022. good work

The project I did in the old version was completely rigid, the similar size project I did in the new version was semi-rigid, probably because of that.