Reinforcement Excess in the Inclined Column.

M

MrtGrsl

New Member
Since the roof is a mansard, we make the columns on the facade inclined, but when we do it this way, the column with a column size of 30/60 turns into a size of 30/64 due to the inclination. This increases the reinforcement in the attic, and the difference goes up to 8-10, not 1-2 reinforcements. how can i solve it.
 
When you measure the column horizontal projection, it is normal to measure larger than the column size due to the angle created by the column curvature. The perpendicular distance to the column longitudinal axis (theoretical axis) is 60 cm. If you want to see the distance projected to the horizontal as 60 cm, you need to decrease the column size according to the angle. You can measure the vertical distance by taking a view or a section. As for the subject of pursantaj: The fact that the pursantaj is higher than the lower floors is not directly related to the measurement of 64 as you wrote. In cases where the normal force is reduced at the top floor compared to the lower floors, such increase in pursantage can be seen if the bending moments are greater than the bottom floor. Examine the design moments. You can increase the column size in order to reduce the existing pursant, or you can use the same reinforcement in the lower floors. (You have a limit of up to 3%. According to the screenshot you added, the current price is 1.88%.) The option to use the equipment on the upper floor on the lower floors is available in the column parameters.
 
First of all, it doesn't make sense to put 22 pieces of reinforcement in a 30/60 column. When the section grows, the reinforcements are different. The moment difference between 401-301 and 403-303 is not a difference that will create this reinforcement difference. Could it be due to the change of major and minor directions because we rotated them and reversed their dimensions? It seems like it would be better if there was an option to bend in two directions. Also, why only the top is written in the combination parts?
 
Hi, The reinforcement results in your project look normal. The low normal strength of the colon adversely affects the colon results. Moreover, tensile force occurs in the S1 column. When the column is not bent, the axial force of the column does not shrink and the reinforcements seem more reasonable. If you look at the capacity ratios according to the corresponding equipment at 1.88% calculated by the program, the capacity ratios remain below 1. If you look at the capacity ratios (1.03%) by giving the reinforcement on a lower floor to the column, you can see that the capacity ratio exceeds 1. 1.03% reinforcement is insufficient at S1 4th floor. A report was taken from the analysis (.cde) on the screenshot you added. That's why you can't see the combination. If you analyze, you can see the combinations in the column report. The upper expression means that that combination is taken from the effects that occur at the upper node of that floor. Column report: You can also see from the reinforced concrete report: According to the new regulation of TBDY2018, column reinforced concrete is made for the upper end of the column of that floor and the lower end of the column on the next floor. Because column reinforcements are continuous in the support area, contrary to the 2007 regulation, reinforcement is made in the middle of the column. Finally, even if you rotate the column and reverse its dimensions, the program takes the major and minor aspects as they should in the design calculation. For more detailed information, see the information at the following link:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Thank you Mr. Hakan. Then we will encounter this situation in slanted columns in general. By simply overwriting, I meant not to write which combination it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top