Questions about using ideCAD Static 6

I had sent a different project from gmail. I had the same problem before. When the cross section between 3-4 axis is taken, the program throws.. the project is attached
 
"YasinTezel":97e30r99" said:
"coskun3561":97e30r99" said:
I stated that I don't want to do it with the tile gap. That way I can already do it. my purpose is to close the edges of the space with beams. There must be a slab edge on the E axis, it may have been erased.
Click to expand...
I drew the slab edge on the E axis, defined the slab gap from the continuous foundations you defined, hollowed out the continuous foundations, and defined another raft foundation at low elevation, Levels, continuous foundation and raft You can adjust the foundation thicknesses according to your project.
Click to expand...
thank you.
 
When the beam is placed next to the curtain, it does not scratch the reinforcements in the beam expansions..? It gives smooth when overlapping 1 cm.
 
If possible, do not make a joist connection this way. A very high shear comes out and is a possible damage area. Stud beams should be inserted into the column at a distance of minimum beam depth. Ve=(Mi+Mj)ln will subtract the cutoff value theoretically goes to infinity since ln is zero in your combination :) .
 
I made a raft foundation in my 2-storey single apartment project. When I tick the negative ground stress control I can't recover in any way on the raft. but even a 30 cm raft saves when it is not marked... Your opinions?
 
"coskun3561":gaapjhxd" said:
I made a raft foundation in my 2-storey single flat project. When I tick the negative ground stress control, I can't save it on the raft at all. But when it is unchecked, even 30 cm raft saves...
Click to expand...
Actually, you already answered your question in the question you asked.. Negative stress occurs on the raft and the program does not warn you when you cancel that control. Examine the results of the ground stress in the report and from the 3D frame. Look at the magnitude of the negative stress and the areas where it is effective. If you add the project, we can find it in a clearer comment. Good work...
 
OK, negative stresses are negligible, but even though I raise the raft 100 cm and open it 50 cm from the sides, I cannot get rid of negative tension. It seems very difficult for me to recover the foundation if I had not neglected it. Or am I doing something wrong somewhere else? I've looked at the analytics settings a lot, but...
 
If you examine the deformation of your system, you will see what causes negative ground stress. (Your cantilever beams protrude out of the foundation area, and act as leverage, raising the other end of the raft). In this example, negative ground stresses occur at the end edge of the raft and have no effect on the building. So it can be neglected. You can also shorten the part of your raft that appears red (subjected to negative stress).
 
When I narrow the foundation, negative stress error remains. I kept the foundation wide so that the further I kept it away from the building, the better.
 
"coskun3561":f9n1m5sn" said:
negative stress error remains when I narrow the foundation. I kept the foundation wider so that the further I keep it away from the building, the better.
Click to expand...
If you change the direction of the S68 column and make a matte raft solution, negative stress - It decreases down to 0.5 t/m2 (g+q-Ey2 loading.) I think this stress is at a negligible level... If you want to remove the negative stress, you need to review the carrier system. It basically comes out larger than q and so the combination becomes negative. I saw an error in your data. You can also see the error in the geometry check. The beam on the S axis (K609) and the beam K591 do not match each other. The same is true on the other floor. You fix them. Good work ...
 
"HakanŞahin":3fgqwjqs" said:
"coskun3561":3fgqwjqs" said:
negative stress error remains when I narrow the foundation. I also kept the foundation wider so that the further I keep it away from the building, the better.
Click to expand...
If you change the direction of the S68 column and make a matte raft solution, the negative stress decreases to -0.5 t/m2 (g+q-Ey2 loading). I think this stress is at a negligible level... If you want to remove negative stress, you need to review the carrier system. Since the number of floors is low, the earthquake loading is greater than g+q in negative loading; and thus the combination becomes negative. I saw an error in your data. You can also see the error in the geometry check. The beam on the S axis (K609) and the beam K591 do not match. The same is true for the other floor. You fix them. Good work...
Click to expand...
has been overlooked, I think we are more careless and make more mistakes in small projects. Thank you. good work to you too
 
"musti776":3iac2hyz" said:
I couldn't do the basic combination of the s27 column, thank you very much if you can help.
Click to expand...
There is no problem with the connection in the S27 column. Only the S25, S27 and S24 columns are not on the same axis, so the bases do not overlap in line arrangement. If you get the continuous foundation report, you can see that the S27 column is taken into account in the support of the TK77 and TK71 foundations. In addition to your question, I draw your attention to the continuous foundation connected to the P3 panel. Insert the TK58 foundation sitting on the P3 panel, holding both ends of the panel. In short, the 1st end of the P3 entering the TK58 Enter by clicking , P3 end 2 and S18. Catch Tk60 also from P3 end 2. Good work...
 
A friend of mine working at the construction site asked me why the reinforcement lengths in raft foundations remained at 11.06 , 11.30 etc., why not all 12 m was used. in practice, the masters said that they avoided their workmanship and applied 12 m directly, and for this reason, there are differences between the resulting quantity and the applied. Why is this overlapping area not taken up to 12 m? I wonder if the aim is to increase the reinforcement area by overlapping in regions where the moment is high? Or is there another reason?
 
I wonder if the possibility of adding extra load to the panels has been added to the work program? Sometimes we need to add a load from the outside, we have difficulty adding it to the program.
 
We have plans to define external load on the panels (such as lateral constant load, lateral variable load-hydrostatic, wall load on the panel). It would be helpful if you could describe what kind of loads you need to define other than these.
 
The subjects I can add to the lateral loads are to enter the grain loads consisting of the curtain system into the system. others, the loads you mentioned are enough for now. In addition, when we get a plan in circular panels, the views are distorted. There is no problem in right-angled panels, only when we transform a curved object into a panel, the panel drawings are distorted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top