German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish Arzu Dural Gök
New Member
Hello, you can upload and link to hotfile or similar site.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Questions about using ideCAD Static 6
- Thread starter canlarins
- Start date
coskun3561
New Member
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Levent Özpak
New Member
There is a report file in the link you added. I couldn't see a general problem in the report file. Raft flooring reinforcement Rearranging the axis of the axles by determining the places where the moment is less can provide a more economical solution.If you attach the project file, the data entry can be examined in more detail."coskun3561":6l6uoiae" said:http://hotfile.com/dl/122638660/7e89f10/katek1.rar.html
coskun3561
New Member
I didn't quite understand what I added wrong. Now I am sending the middle part of the analysis. The state before the edits were made. The part I'm curious about is only the basic equipment part, the other parts of the project are a bit messy when I send this.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Levent Özpak
New Member
I added
In the project you added, there is a In your project, the lower moments on the calculation axis no. 1 forced the system a bit. Therefore, the fi16/13 reinforcement is thrown. If the reinforcement axes and working distances are arranged as in the example project, the fi16/13 reinforcement in the X direction is thrown only at the distance arranged in the project, instead of the entire span. It also provides reinforcement economy"coskun3561":2p7tdadm" said:wrong, I didn't quite understand. Now I am sending the middle part of the analysis. The version before the edits. The part I was wondering about is the basic equipment part, the other parts of the project are a bit messy when I send this.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.
coskun3561
New Member
Thanks
coskun3561
New Member
greetings, what is the meaning of the dashed line in the beam expansions?
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, It is a drawing technique used to prevent reinforcements from overlapping in expansions. With the ] command, you can move it to a suitable place and delete the line."coskun3561":39nwiazl" said:greetings, what is the meaning of the dashed line in beam expansions?
HELLO... AS A NEW GRADUATE COLLEASE, YOU WOULD HAVE A FEW RESPONSIBILITIES ABOUT "ANALYSIS SETTINGS".... 1- Select "CONSIDER THE CENTER OF RIGIBILITY IN THE EFFECT OF OUTER CENTER" option in "TDY OPTIONS"...; 2- Select "CONSIDER CONSOLE AND SIMPLE BEAMERS IN COLUMN BEAM CUTTING SAFETY" in "TDY OPTIONS"... 3- Select "CALCULATE CUTTING FORCES AND CALCULATE NORMAL FORCES" in "SYSTEM OPTIONS"...; 4- Select "SUPERSTRUCTURE INTERACTIVE SOLUTION" in "FOUNDATION - FLOOR"; HAVE I MADE A SIGNIFICANT MISTAKE IF I DON'T SELECT IN MY PROJECTS......
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Hello, 1. for item: If checked, eccentricity : ex= | ym-yr | + 0.05 * By ey= | xm-xr | If + 0.05 * Bx is not marked, the eccentricity is taken into account as ex= 0.05 * By ey= 0.05 * Bx. Xm, Ym = Abssi and ordinate of center of mass Xr, Yr = Abpsi and ordinate of center of stiffness Bx = Horizontal building dimension By = Vertical building dimension You do not need to mark according to TDY. ex= 0.05 * By and ey= 0.05 * Bx is sufficient. If you want to take into account the excess eccentricity during the effect of earthquake effects on the structure, you mark it. 2. If item is checked, cantilever beams are also included in the column-beam joint shear safety. Since this issue is not clear in the regulation, you may not tick this option. 3. Article is about shell analysis. Talking specifically for slabs, you don't have to mark as slabs are equipped for bending moment. In short, it has no effect on the overall analysis. In the 3D frame view, you mark if you want to also examine the shear and normal force effects for the shell results. 4. clause should be applied for floors that fall into groups C and D according to TDY. Other than that, you don't have to mark.
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply..it was very enlightening..."HakanŞahin":14by266n" said:Hi, For item 1: If checked, eccentricity : ex= | ym-yr | + 0.05 * By ey= | xm-xr | + 0.05 * If Bx is not marked, the eccentricity is taken into account as ex= 0.05 * By ey= 0.05 * Bx Xm, Ym = Abssi and ordinate of the center of mass Xr, Yr = Abssi and ordinate of the center of rigidity Bx = Horizontal building dimension By = Vertical building dimension to TDY Ex= 0.05 * By and ey= 0.05 * Bx is sufficient. If you want to take into account the excessive eccentricity during the effect of earthquake effects on the structure, you can mark it. If item 2 is checked, cantilever beams are also included in the column-beam shear safety You may not tick this option as it is not clear in the regulation. Article 3 relevant to the shell analysis. If we talk specifically for slabs, you do not have to mark it because slabs are equipped with bending moment. In short, it has no effect on the overall analysis. In 3D frame view , truncation for shell results and if you want to examine the normal force effects, you mark it. 4. clause should be applied for floors that fall into groups C and D according to TDY. Other than that, you don't have to mark it.
HELLO, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE BEAM EXTENSIONS. IN THE PROJECT I ADDED, THE 5TH AND 6TH BEAMS ARE EXTENDED TWICE. AT THE FIRST TIME, IT CONTINUOUSLY SHOWS WITH NUMBER 4, AND IN THE SECOND IT CANNOT BECOME A REGISTRATION? I'M Glad... IT'S A MORE TECHNICAL QUESTION I'M A VERY NEW ENGINEER, I WOULD LIKE TO HELP YOU. IS IT A MORE RIGHT SOLUTION TO USE WINKS IN BRAIDED RADIATE FOUNDATIONS? MY RADGE FOUNDATIONS ARE OUT OF Q16/12 EVERY PROJECT EVERY PROJECT, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY SETTINGS...
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, This is within our knowledge. You can delete the K05-K06 beam expansion drawn for the second time and continue with the project."dexana":2rp9q6m5" said:HELLO, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE BEAM EXTENSIONS. IN THE PROJECT I ADDED, THE 5TH AND 6TH BEAMS ARE DOING EXTENSIONS 2 TIMES. THE FIRST HAS BEEN SHOWED WITH THE NUMBER 4 AND THEY CONTINUE TO RECEIVE 6 WHY IT IS THE SAME, WHY IT HAPPENS? I WOULD LIKE TO HELP YOU...
It would be more appropriate to use the wink spring method for beam foundations. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND I HAVE STRESS[/quote] In your project, in the raft laying parameters, the minimum prime draw price and the minimum other shrinkage rate are 0.0025. See TS 500 e these values can be entered such that 0.0020 and the total odds are 0.0035. Arrangement of reinforcement ratios in this way provides reinforcement economy in foundations operating at minimum price. In addition, if the foundation works at a minimum, reducing the thickness of the foundation can also provide economy. (For example, in this project, if the raft thickness is 70 cm and the min prime shrinkage and minimum other pursantage is 0.0020, the reinforcement becomes fi16/15.)ANOTHER TECHNICAL TOPIC IS VERY NEW BECAUSE I AM AN ENGINEER, I WOULD LIKE TO HELP YOU WITH IT, IS IT A SUITABLE SOLUTION TO USE WINKS ON BRAIDED FOUNDATIONS?
Levent Özpak
New Member
Re: Layer problem
We have added the situation to our detection list. Thank you for your attention."Oznb":1ekt8ocp" said:idestatic V 6.54 sets the layer of stirrup details as standard when printing details inside column application plans .does not show as reinforcement line
coskun3561
New Member
Greetings, I have a problem with the beams in the middle part of the structure in the link, can I have your suggestions? In addition, if there are design errors that catch your eye, I expect your help.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello, the problem with the beams is due to the lack of stirrups. If the stirrup diameter of 10 is selected in the reinforcement selection dialog and analysis is made, the problem is solved."coskun3561":1ymptmmf" said:greetings, I have a problem with the beams in the middle part of the structure in the link, can I get your suggestions?
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hi, Uncheck the Auto-name split objects line in the beam assistant toolbar when connecting beams to curtains. In this case, the split panels will not be named differently. However, wrong panel/beam intersection message, It may be given because your beams are not attached to the panels at the right place. If you add your project, we will review it. Good work"dexana":3qmpxak3" said:hello, I have a problem with curtains. When beams are stuck to the curtain from different points, it divides the curtain and gives an error by naming it differently because it is the wrong panel/beam combination...