Questions about using ideCAD Static 6

retaining wall error message when I enter the base tooth as 80 cm in the retaining wall project that I have drawn and sent the attached ponders, an idestatic error message is given as 'object dimensions are incorrect, please check the geometry'. What could be the reason for this?
 
"tavekkul":2924fmtq" said:
Hello, happy holidays :) I want to make a beamless cassette slab... how can I model it?
Click to expand...
You can use this type of slab with normal beams and small slabs to accurately model both load transfer to columns and earthquake behavior You must enter using parts.
 
Re: retaining wall error message
"ahmetkale":1k398mf9" said:
Idestatic 'object dimensions are incorrect, please check the geometry' error message when I enter the base tooth as 80 cm in the retaining wall project that I have drawn and sent the attached ponders What could be the reason.
Click to expand...
Did you enter the values in the screenshot?The program does not give an error with these values.
 
Hello, how to change the spectrum value after analysis in Idecad version 6.0055. The program asks in the first analysis and does not ask again. Have a nice day.
 
"yilmazozaktan":ts9za4u4" said:
Hello, how to change the spectrum value after analysis in Idecad version 6.0055. It asks in the first analysis and does not ask again. Good day.
Click to expand...
Click on the "Search this forum" box spectrum on the top left You can search by typing .
 
The answer to the question is here:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
2 major versions were released on version 6.0055, many new works were done. Better update your program.
 
rigid floors hello. I have a question: For example, in a project where high ductility is selected, is it correct to perform high ductility checks and accordingly confined column checks on floors defined as rigid floors, or is it correct to check these floors according to normal ductility level rather than high? thanks
 
Hello, there is no mention of ductility selection according to the floor in the Earthquake Code. The ductility level can be determined for the overall building carrier system. (Table 2.5). I also understood from your question that the unenclosed column is perceived as a problem. If this is meant, I would like to say that in systems with high ductility level, whether the column is surrounded or not surrounded is not a problem, it emphasizes a situation. (item 3.5.1) The important thing is that the column-beam junction is not unsafe. Good work
 
"Levent Özpak":65vm3zrq" said:
Hello, there is no mention of ductility selection by floor in the Earthquake Code. The ductility level can be determined for the overall building carrier system. (Table 2.5). Also, from your question, the fact that the column is not surrounded is a problem If this is meant, I would like to say that in systems with high ductility level, the fact that the column is surrounded or not surrounded is not a problem, it emphasizes a situation.(article 3.5.1) The important thing is that the column-beam combination is not unsafe. studies
Click to expand...
my problem to briefly mention is this. A building with a car park in the basement has a parking ceiling at a different level from its normal level, and just because of this, I have to make the height of the beam at a height of 105 cm, and this causes it to report unsafe on the column on that floor . and the column in question is unnecessarily large for me just because of this (like a circle column diameter of 90 cm in a 6-storey building). I gave it to the chamber of civil engineers and mentioned this and what I was told is that I don't have to do a confined column check on the rigid floor. I looked at the regulation and asked for your help because I couldn't see any statement about it. I also see that it performs a surrounded column check even on the columns that I have defined in the screen. Is this a necessary check? I am attaching the project, you can have a look if you wish. Thanks in advance for your interest in a short time, Mr.
 
The information I gave you on this subject was to reveal the working principle of the program. If the control mechanism and according to you, there is no need for joint safety control on the rigid floor, there is no problem. Good work
 
"Levent Özpak":23bbxpzs" said:
The information I gave you on this subject was to reveal the working principle of the program. If the control mechanism and according to you, there is no need for joint safety control on the rigid floor, there is no problem. Good work
Click to expand...
project It can't be loaded because it's too big. I already got the project approval. What I want to know is, do I need to check the confined floor on the rigid floor?
 
I want to learn, do I need to do the confined floor control? if not, can an option be placed in the program?
Click to expand...
Considering that the rigid floor may not behave highly ductile, this check may not be made. We have recorded your request in our notes. Good work
 
"Levent Özpak":28n3jvp4" said:
Is a confined floor required to be checked on the rigid floor that I want to learn? If not, can an option be added in the program?
Click to expand...
This control may not be made considering that the rigid floor may not behave highly ductile. We recorded your request in our notes. Good work
Click to expand...
thanks for your interest, good work
 
When enters the beam width of 20 cm.. enters the beam width of 20 cm, the program does not give any errors. It doesn't do regulation checks. I wonder what is the problem? I have a second question. Why is the cover taken as 4.5 cm by default in the new version. Isn't it too much?
 
When I enter the beam width of 20 cm, the program does not give an error anywhere. It doesn't do regulation checks. I wonder what's wrong?
Click to expand...
There is no special reason why it is not among the control criteria. It may be added in future updates.
why is the cover taken as 4.5 cm by default in the new version. Isn't it too much?
Click to expand...
In the new version, the calculation and drawing logic of the cover has been changed. When the net concrete cover is taken into account (approximately 2.5 cm), the concrete cover (cover) is approximately 4.5 cm. Concrete cover=The distance from the center of gravity of the longitudinal reinforcement to the outermost concrete fiber.
 
cracked section stiffness hello, tdy 7.4.13 says that in the performance analysis, effective bending stiffnesses of the cracked section will be used in the elements. Is this rule automatically applied when we perform a performance analysis in IDE? I will be glad if you inform me. best regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top