Problem with performance account

[pascal]

A reporter from the district municipality asked for a performance calculation for the newly built building, I do not understand the performance calculation, we had someone do it, the result we received is as in the appendix. It says it shouldn't be considered a risky building. The building was already newly built, was it evaluated according to RBTE? I also asked him, he says that IDE gives results in this way as a performance analysis. I ask experienced friends to help.

 

[HakanŞahin]

A reporter from the district municipality asked for a performance calculation for the newly built building, I do not understand the performance calculation, we had someone do it, the result we received is as attached. It says it should not be considered as a risky building. The building was already newly built, told RBTE I wonder if the friend who evaluated it according to the performance analysis, I asked him, he says that this is how IDE gives results in terms of performance analysis. I ask experienced friends to help me.

The person who made the analysis evaluated the building not with a "performance analysis", but with a risky building analysis, According to the result, the building is not at risk. There is no such thing as ideCAD gives it this way, because performance analysis and risky building analysis are different evaluations. There are separate commands for both in the program. Talk to the district municipality again, will they accept the risk building analysis, otherwise the performance analysis You get an analysis done or ask the person you made the account for a performance analysis.

 

[NYILMAZ]

Performance analysis versus RBTE is something different. It seems that the attached file is a Risky structure analysis output. There are many differences in the regulation between performance analysis and risky structure analysis. In risky structure analysis, the structure is not examined in detail. Calculation is made based on simple acceptance and criteria. In the simplest, core is taken only from the ground floor and the ground floor is considered as the critical floor. The target is to determine the risk status of the building as soon as possible and to provide transformation. Performance analysis determines the strength of the structure in its current state. Accordingly, it is checked whether there is a need for reinforcement. In a sense, it forms the infrastructure of the strengthening project. The building is examined in more detail, the number of cores specified in the regulation is taken on each floor. The reinforcement is stripped, the reinforcement is read by non-destructive methods (X-ray). (whether the building is new, these are required by the regulation). But after all, performance analysis and new structure calculation analysis results and calculation methods are also different from each other. In this sense, sometimes thought-provoking results are obtained. This is due to the difference in the regulation and the corresponding calculation method between the two methods, as I wrote a little earlier. It is a pity that many administrations do not yet know what they want. It seems that they have completed the process with risky structure analysis when they wanted a performance analysis. (probably like your example). Even more painful (again, as in your example) is that the engineers who do it do not know what it is. This is evident from the answer you received and the account output. IdeYAPI has put the analysis on the program, but some friends think that they have solved the problem by clicking the icon there. This is the "cow sausage method" we always talk about.

 

[pascal]

Thank you very much for your answers. When he conveyed what you said, he sent a new account, but it does not say anything about the result. Could you please have a look?

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

link. I couldn't upload it to the site because it is more than 3 mb. I would be very grateful if you could review and reply. Good work.

 

[NYILMAZ]

This time it seems that there is a performance analysis result in the file you sent. It is necessary to examine the state of the building according to the 7th section of the DBYBHY regulation. The program has yielded its results. You can find these results on pages 9, 10 and 11 of the report. I looked briefly and roughly. While examining this, it seems that some elements (curtains) are in the collapse region. See evaluation by regulation. The relevant article of the regulation is attached. Some information is not printed on the report: knowledge level coefficient, target performance level, reinforcement performance report, analysis method used, etc. Apart from the calculation report; Concrete class C30 ? has the core been taken? how many? Where from? Have equipment films been made? Stripping done? where, how many? How do we know the equipment? There are stirrups in the tightening area and they are made 7 cm apart?

 

[efsane]

Hello. I was entering the curtains with the column icon with the thought of making easy changes in the dimensions when necessary. However, in the performance analysis, we saw that the curtains we entered with the column icon were wrong with the "crisp" result, but when we corrected them and entered with the normal curtain icon, the problem disappeared. Best regards...

 

[musabilir13]

I have a retrofitting project in my hand and as a result of the current situation performance in this project, around 30 of them appear as brittle elements, mostly columns and 8 beams, and it is stated in the performance report that they are insufficient. In the retrofitting project, on each floor of the 3-storey structure reinforced with only 8 curtains. My question is, do all the brittle elements need to be strengthened or will those brittle elements lose their brittleness with the addition of these 8 curtains to the building? so is it ok? Is the brittleness of brittle elements removed by the mere addition of curtains? thanks.

 

[HakanŞahin]

I have a retrofitting project in hand and as a result of the current situation performance in this project, most of them are around 30 column and 8 beam brittle elements and it is stated in the performance report that they are insufficient. Each floor in a 3-storey structure with reinforcement. My question is, do all the brittle elements need to be strengthened or will those brittle elements lose their brittleness with the addition of these 8 curtains to the building. Hello, If the elements are still brittle when you perform a performance analysis after the reinforcement curtains are added, it means that it is not enough to strengthen with the curtain, the elements that come out brittle should also be strengthened.

 

[musabilir13]

thank you. In addition, the stripped columns and beams have steel ribs in some parts, and the ratio of flat but ribbed reinforcement is higher, should the steel class be taken as s420 or bç1 should be taken as s220 in the current situation performance. Can a performance analysis be taken without evaluating the basic system? Are the accessories entered into the program one by one for the current situation? In the current status report, can I see the reinforcements of all column-beam-wall-foundation in the report? Since my last question is a building sports facility, they are expected to provide 50% (HK) performance in 50 years and 10% (CG) performance levels in 50 years according to earthquake regulations. When I examine some of the static reports that I can download from the internet, it is determined that the structural importance factor is I=1 AND I=1.5 for some structures or the design spectrum factor is 1.0 in the existing HK and retrofit HK performance report for some structures. I found that the spectrum multiplier is 1.5. My question is what coefficients should be taken according to the existing and strengthened situation as the design spectrum multiplier for the sports facility. thank you.

 

[HakanŞahin]

thank you. Also, should the steel grade be taken as s420 or bç1 should be taken as s220 in the current situation performance, such as steel ribs in some of the stripped columns and beams, and a flat but ribbed reinforcement ratio in some of them. Can a performance analysis be taken without evaluating the system? Are the reinforcements entered into the program one by one for the current situation? Can I see the reinforcements of all columns, beams, curtains, and foundations in the current status report? My last question is 50% (HK) in 50 years according to the earthquake regulation, since the building is a sports facility; They are expected to provide 10% (CG) performance levels in 50 years. When I examined some static reports that I could download from the internet, while analyzing, for some structures, the structural importance coefficient was taken as I=1 AND I=1.5, or for some, the design spectrum multiplier was 1 in the existing HK and reinforcement HK performance report. I found that it gets a design spectrum multiplier of 1.5 in the current CG and retrofit CG performance report, where it gets .0. What coefficients should be taken according to the existing and strengthened situation as the design spectrum multiplier for the sports facility. Thank you.

You do not need to make any coefficient adjustments in the program. The coefficients are automatically applied according to the performance target you select in the analysis settings.

 

[musabilir13]

thanks. In addition, the stripped columns and beams have steel ribs in some parts, and the ratio of flat but ribbed reinforcement is higher, should the steel class be taken as s420 or bç1 should be taken as s220 in the current situation performance. Can a performance analysis be taken without evaluating the basic system? Are the accessories entered into the program one by one for the current situation? In the current status report, can I see the reinforcements of all column-beam-wall-foundation in the report? Can you share your thoughts on my other 2 questions?