Regarding RBTE --R coefficient

M

mgeresin

New Member
3.5.6 Vr value G+NQ+-E/6 loading combination......... in rbte works.. In risky building analysis, analysis data entry R Coefficient 6 is required?
 
"mgeresin":1jlcdk3f" said:
rbte studies say 3.5.6 Vr valueG+NQ+-E/6 loading combination.......... In risky building analysis, is it necessary to enter analysis data entry R Coefficient of 6[/ quote] No, you don't need to enter the coefficient R 6. In other words, it doesn't matter what you enter because R=1 is taken in the risky building analysis... G+NQ+-E/6 is done automatically as a combination.
Click to expand...
 
Re: About rbte In the file I attached, 2007 dy is done, it ensures the safety of life and when rbte is done, it is risky because of the s7 and s8 columns. Since the collapse zone is shifted in RB, it should not be risky in RB. I would be glad if you review the file.
 
Re: about rbte
"mgeresin":kqhwq6o2" said:
In the file I attached, 2007 dy is done, it ensures life safety and when rbte is made, it is risky because of s7 and s8 columns. It shouldn't be. big calculated.
Click to expand...
 
No matter how much our account is correct, I think you made a wrong transaction in the idestatic rbte account. According to 2007, the building, which has a life safety, should definitely not be risky in RBTE. The collapse zone was postponed in RBTE. ide also rbte is risky. When we solve the same file in a different program, it is not risky compared to RBT. As an ideal structure, RBTE should definitely be updated.
 
"mgeresin":1tzynh7v" said:
However, I think that our account made a mistake in the idestatic rbte account, even if you have the correct design. According to 2007, the structure with life safety should definitely not be risky in rbte. When we solve the file in a different program, it does not come out as risky compared to RBTE. As an ide structure, RBTE should definitely be updated.
Click to expand...
Hello, Where do you think there is an error? Element capacity is certain, loading values are certain.. Stirrup ranges are certain... Columns appear in group B. Even if it is in group A, the building will not be a risky building. Since you have made such a comparison, you have the results of the comparison. If you share, we will analyze it. 1. The same work is not done in the performance analysis with the risky building. in the analysis of buildings, the middle zone stirrup range is taken as a basis. If you anticipate to be based on the si stirrup range, you can enter the wrap zone range values as the middle zone stirrup spacing. Instead of fi8/20/10, like fi8/10. Thus, the columns will appear in group A and the building will not be a risky building. 3. You wrote "The building that has a life-safety should definitely not be risky in rb", logically what you wrote may be correct, but you may not get results that match mathematically due to the 1st item. It is necessary to ask the committee that prepares the risky building analysis why the calculation criteria are not made the same for both calculations. If you have a document with comparisons showing that the risky building analysis regulation is mathematically compatible with the performance analysis, please share it with us. Good work
 
[*][*]A structure solved in IDE 7.20 does not fall out of the scope of risky structure no matter how much the rbte concrete class increases. 2007 perfons dada gives life safety. however, when the steel class changes, RBTE is out of the scope of risky structure. When we solve it in a different program, it is not within the scope of risky structure under the same conditions.
 
"mgeresin":ntmxry9d" said:
[*][*]A structure solved in IDE 7.20 does not fall out of the scope of risky structure no matter how much the rbte concrete class increases. It gives life safety in 2007 performance. However, when the steel class changes, it is out of the scope of rbte risky construction When we solve it in a different program, it is not within the scope of risky construction under the same conditions.
Click to expand...
because there are different variables from the concrete class. For example, as an extreme example. What do you think will happen if the C50 CONCRETE CLASS and the reinforcement area are zero. or C50 concrete has stirrups no. tdy2007 There is no parallel approach even between the 7th chapter and the previous chapters. you have witnessed here. subject the newly designed building to linear performance analysis and sometimes collapse occurs. why? because the design approach is different. material approach is different. load approach is different. example: new design for 1st combination: 1.4G+1.6Q.....TDY2007/7 DE G+Q for new design R: 3/4/5/6/7/8.....TDY2007/7 DE 1 new design CONCRETE MATERIAL COEFFICIENT for 1.5.....TDY STEEL MATERIAL COEFFICIENT for a new design in 2007/7 DE 1 1.15.....TDY2007/7 DE 1 these examples can be multiplied. There are similar differences in approach between RBTE2013 and TDY2007. The assumption that there is/will be a complete harmony is a subject that needs proof very much. at its simplest, the number E is very different in rbte.
 
The example I am talking about is that the structure that is solved in 2 different programs is risky in one, and the other does not, this difference should not be obvious. studies
 
"mgeresin":11a23yke" said:
The example I'm talking about is that the structure that is solved in 2 different programs is risky in one, the other does not, this difference should not be obvious between the programs. good work
Click to expand...
you may not be able to establish the data balance within the programs. Check the moments such as reinforcement balance, load balance etc. Examine the shears. Check the column classifications. Check the capacity calculations. a tangible Let things come out. I don't want to repeat what I wrote about the concrete class. If you know what the "right" is, it's fine anyway.
 
I reviewed both data you sent. If you haven't done anything by mistake, these two data are very different from each other. carrier system is different. The material is different. reinforcement pieces/diameters/range are different. so the result is also different...
 
"mgeresin":3h958493" said:
IDE FILE MUST BE COMPARED WITH THE NEW IDE .IDE FILE AND NEW.RAR FILES. DOWNLOAD NEW IDE FILE GOOD WORK
Click to expand...
dear mgersin. I examined both data in detail. preliminary accounts are very close to each other. I saw the difference. The difference is due to the calculation of the "m" limit value. For group B columns, there are 2 criteria in the regulation. One of them is the axial load ratio and the other is the stirrup reinforcement ratio. From here, values are obtained by linear interpolation for the intermediate values and the "m" limit value is obtained. and "d/h" limit values will be obtained. All "m" limit values are calculated equal in xxx4 software. It is actually necessary to check this for intermediate values with the help of an excel table. xxx4 calculates all limit m values as 4.26. In the table in xxx4 software, Ash/( sbk) value is also taken from the table. In idestatic, this value is written in the table. It would be appropriate for both software teams to examine this situation. As expected from the idestatic regulation, this value is written in the table. It calculates a new "m" limit value for man and for each upload. this is what it should be. Due to the high "m" limit values in the xxx4 software, the risk limit is not exceeded in the columns. Best regards...
 
In addition, it is necessary to remove the "there is stirrup tightening" option in the ide static data. if there is no 135 degree hook. In other data, the floor height is also taken as 3 meters.
 
friends, it will be like resurrecting the subject, but I did not want to pass without writing. In this new.ide file, the reason why columns S07 and S08 collapse in the X direction is that there are only these two columns working in the X direction. all the other columns work in the y direction and since their inertia in the x direction is weak, the shear force they will meet was only one fifth of the columns no. 07 and 08. In total, the shear force on these two columns is 12.95 + 15.28 = 28.23 tons. Since the shear force on the floor is 60.44 tons, the building is considered to be risky because the value of 28.23/60.44 = 0.467 in the X direction and the limit value of the floor shear force ratio is 0.347. I did not see any errors in the calculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top