Questions about using ideCAD Static 6

Mr. Tawakkul, you envisioned passing a 2.5 meter span cantilever floor with a live load of 750 kg/m2 and passing it with 17 cm. You've far exceeded the h=1/10 requirement. If this flooring is made in practice, if it can stay in place without excessive deflection under these loads, please let us know in the specification here. greetings, respect.
 
Mr. insmuh_gk Unfortunately, architectural conditions do not always give us the opportunity to project the way we want... as you said, this balcony flooring is very difficult... I deliberately gave the load of 750 kg/m2 too much... the live load that will come on the spot will not exceed 200... Also, the floor, defined as 17 cm, was sectioned to be 20 cm on the beam edge and 12 cm on the console end. Additionally, I am thinking of inverting the formwork... Unfortunately, I do not know how to enter such a variable cross-section slab in the idea... Also, the reinforcements in the equipment are 10' according to the calculation of the ide. It turns out that I wanted to make this equipment fi14/15... I think the deflection calculation was done by the ide and it didn't make any mistakes as it is... if you have any suggestions, I would be happy if you share them.
 
Hello, 1. Since the "always check deflection condition" is not checked in the 1. Floor settings, the program does not give a warning because the TS500 requires deflection and the height condition is met. For floors like this, which are thought to have high deflection, it would be appropriate to have the deflection condition checked by the program for all conditions. In short, you can make calculations by checking the "always check the deflection condition" option.... If we examine the deflection values of the slabs in detail; In D23 and D24 slabs, the total deflection values are 12.56 and 11.82 mm and the condition ln/240 is not met. 2. Account axles are used for the migrated location unless otherwise stated. In other words, we get the reinforcement values according to the point where we define the calculation axes of the slab. For slabs where reinforcement is considered critical, I suggest doing a more thorough investigation by looking at the moment and reinforcement diagram for 1.4G+1.6Q from a 3D perspective. If we examine the calculation axis number 1 especially in D23 and D24 slabs, we can see that it would be appropriate to put flat reinforcement at the top and bottom according to the diagram, and it is possible to see moment values such as -12 tm, especially on the column edges in the short direction. You can determine the largest reinforcement areas. 3. For the support condition of the cantilever floors, there is an option "this beam carries the console floor" in the beam settings. If we tick this option, we will let you know whether the console floor is fully attached to the beam on which it is moved. Depending on how console flooring works, it is important whether this option is checked or not. Depending on the presence of another beam and column around the slab, the behavior of the slab may change. With the option that this beam carries the console floor, we give the beam that is restrained in the direction of the console to the beam. Good work...
 
Hello, Here are the reasons for typical beam warnings; 1-The slab is defined as the cassette and the transverse teeth are not formed. I guess some tiles are not specifically defined because they are symmetrical. It is useful to define. I wish you good work
 
In addition; It will give the same warning in cases where the typical beams formed in the transverse and longitudinal directions do not follow each other. While openings larger than 4 m should be read as cassettes, you can create ones smaller than 4 m as ribs. Beam widths do not save in some, it is useful to make it horizontally. I tried to fix the project and get no error message. The project is attached.
 
"Levent Özpak":3hhh765l" said:
Hi, The reasons for typical beam warnings here are: 1-The slab is defined as a cassette and not transverse threads are formed 2-It is due to not defining a beam for slabs. I think some slabs are not specifically defined because they are symmetrical. It is useful to be defined. Good. I have defined it as
Click to expand...
tape because I need to make the beams the same in order to make them continuous.If I solve the tapes with this state of the project, if there is no wrong solution, I will ignore the warnings...
"yozhan":3hhh765l" said:
In addition; It will give the same warning in cases where the typical beams formed in the transverse and longitudinal directions do not follow each other. While openings larger than 4 m should be read as cassettes, you can create ones smaller than 4 m as ribs. Beam widths do not save in some, it is useful to make it horizontally. I tried to fix the project and get no error message. The project is attached.
Click to expand...
I tried to continue the typical beams in the transverse and longitudinal directions... as you said, if I make ribs smaller than 4 m and tapes and the larger ones, there will be no continuity in the expansions... as I said, by giving them the same starting point to catch the same direction, I used the rib teeth. I needed to create a tape... so I made all of them tapes... the beam widths will be enlarged as necessary after defining the beam and floor loads as well as the other floors.. thank you... by the way, if we look at the states of the centers of mass and stiffness, although the attached project is fully symmetrical. I see it's different for rd1 and rd3. Also, when I copy and analyze the project 5 floors on top, two floors in the basement, there is A1 irregularity for rd1, while A1 does not appear in rd3. fully symmetrical including project loads...
 
In the attached section, it gives an incorrect angle warning in the geometry control... when I define the beam with ortho active, I cannot define the slab.
 
"tavekkul":1wdfq6p8" said:
in the attached section gives an incorrect angle warning in the geometry control... even when I define the beam while ortho is active, I cannot define the slab.
Click to expand...
Hello, In order to detect such problems that usually occur unconsciously during data entry, We added such a warning to the program in version 6. If we look at the project, the angle of the K29 and K30 beams is different compared to the elements that continue after it (If you look at it with a parallel reference, the same beams appear 360 degrees, the next panel and beams appear 0 degrees). but if we still want to fix it, we can do it with return node point. I fixed the situation in the attached project. Good work...
 
"tavekkul":156ozzes" said:
I encountered these errors in my project.
Click to expand...
The first message shows that the project is being read from an environment with write access denied. The file may have read-only protection, it should be checked if it is.. 2. and the 3rd message shows that due to the situation in the first message with read protection, the backup file cannot be retrieved and measures should be taken to prevent data loss.In short, these messages may have occurred at that moment.. It is not easy to find the reason without examining it...
 
I wrote before. Since I could not get an answer, I am writing again: The straw reinforcements on the hollow blocks are drawn separately for each floor. Instead, is it possible to arrange one wicker reinforcement in horizontal and vertical directions not exceeding 12 meters for the whole formwork? It would be better if it was like the rafters without beams. Otherwise, the formwork plan looks very crowded and it is not possible to do it in practice. Good work.
 
Re: b1 irregularity Mr. Levent, good work... I was going to have a question, I searched in the forum, but I couldn't find a suitable title for it, so I write here. I have a problem with the program in the shear safety control of column beam junction areas.. .Actually, I can't tell if it's a problem at the moment...all the columns provided shear safety in my last project. However, I have to throw the span reinforcement min 3fi12 in my beams due to the min reinforcement ratio condition...but when I make a change in the beams, the shear safety fails starting to give... I would appreciate if you could help me... good work again...
 
Re: b1 irregularity Hello, As stated in the regulation article 3.5.1, in the column beam connection safety control Ve=1.25*fyk*(As1+As2)-Vkol[ It is calculated from the formula /b]. Here, the AS values are the beam longitudinal reinforcement areas at the column support. (Figure 3.10) Therefore, if the number or number of longitudinal reinforcements of the beam attached to the column is increased, the value of Ve will also increase and B problem may occur in the column. In the attached pdf file, there are suggestions for ensuring the shear safety of column-beam junction. Good work
 
Hello, I have a renovation project. While the last layer should have been wooden, the project was not complied with and a reinforced concrete floor was laid on the brick wall. Now if you want to transfer this situation to performance analysis, how can I do it? There are no columns in the attic. If a column is entered and zero value is entered in stiffness reduction, the value is not accepted. How can the performance analysis of such a structure be made?
 
You do not need to define the attic as a floor.. It is sufficient to define the loads coming from the attic to the ceiling of a lower floor.
 
"metinkacar":2v91p974" said:
you don't need to define the attic as a floor.. it is enough to define the loads coming from the attic to the ceiling of a lower floor.
Click to expand...
The municipality wants a floor definition. It wants the reinforced concrete floor to be entered in 3 dimensions. Your we are doing what you said on wooden ceiling, but something like that was requested in reinforced concrete.
 
Re: b1 irregularity thank you Mr. Levent for your help and suggestions... I have one more question, after the ladder analysis, the number of dynamic modes was given an error... even though i changed the stair fittings, the first fittings in the drawings continue to appear...good work...
 
Re: b1 irregularity Hello,
"dexana":2nsw0ti9" said:
gave an error that the number of dynamic modes is insufficient after ladder analysis...I would appreciate if you could help me fix this error...[/quote ] If you are solving the ladder in an empty project, place a column here and make a general analysis.The warning will disappear
, although I changed the ladder reinforcements, the first reinforcements in the drawings continue to appear. it should also change in the drawing. If not, add your project. Good work
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top