REINFORCEMENT IS LOW ON CONTINUOUS FOUNDATIONS. It's urgent.

[merve]

First of all, it's easy for everyone. I just started doing reinforced concrete projects. So there is a lot of lack of experience. When I compare the reinforcements calculated by the program for continuous foundations in a 1 basement + 3 storey housing project I have done with the same type of projects, it is almost 1/3 less. To give an example, in a project of the same type, a foundation beam with a span of 4 m has 16fi 16, while I have 5fi16 reinforcement at 4.5 m. When I examine the moments and axial loads in the calculation reports, they are few. I've looked through the project many times but couldn't find any errors. When I talked to the municipality about this issue, they said that many ide users stopped using the program in the new version due to this problem in the foundations. I don't know if there is such a problem, but I think that the idea is more useful and understandable compared to other programs, and I would appreciate it if you could let me know where I went wrong or other deficiencies in the project. Thank you in advance.

 

[2m proje]

Hello there; First of all, I would like to state that I consider the statement made by the people in the municipality to be very illogical and contrary to engineering principles. In order to make such a comment, each of his projects must be proven to be correct or incorrect. We come across similar statements as "you have a lot of equipment". If we go back to your project; - First of all, you cannot define a tie beam under the curtains, you must define a continuous foundation beam. - Your project has been solved by considering the 4th degree earthquake zone, which reduces the earthquake loads on the structure, so the foundation section and reinforcements. - Again, the dimensions of the flats in your continuous foundation beams are very large, which will cause a decrease in the opening moment in the foundations, thus reducing the reinforcements. - Most importantly, you have made a superstructure-based interactive solution, when you cancel this option, you will see that your reinforcements for the foundation beams increase by 2 times. In summary, although there are some definition errors in your project, I did not see an excessive lack of reinforcement. For a healthy comparison, you need to model and compare the aforementioned over-equipped project yourself. Best regards...

 

[HakanŞahin]

Hello, when I examined the moments and axial loads in the

calculation reports, they were few. I examined the project many times, but could not find any errors.

In your project, the earthquake effects are basically not effective as a design in the 4th earthquake zone. If you look at the results of the continuous foundation end forces, the design was made from vertical 1.4G+1.6Q loading. There is no problem in the reinforcement values obtained according to this result. On the beamless raft slab you defined in the middle region, fi/16/15 reinforcement appears at the top and fi16/14 reinforcement at the bottom. This result also tells me It looked normal. You defined a tie beam under the foundations of P1-P7-P2 in your project. You are making a superstructure-foundation interactive solution; since the tie beams are only tension/pressure working elements, it doesn't make sense to define it this way under the panels. You have to constantly put the foundation under the panels. [quote ="merve":3r3s1whe"] in a 1 basement ground + 3 storey residence project, the reinforcements calculated by the program on continuous foundations are combined with the same type of projects. It's almost 1/3 less when I compare it. If I were to give an example, in a project of the same type, a foundation beam with a span of 4 m has 16fi 16, while I have 5fi16 reinforcement at 4.5 m.[/quote] If you add a project you compared to the message, we can make an evaluation as calculation parameters / system / data entry and we can do it more. We come to a clear conclusion.

when I discussed the issue with the municipality, they said that many ide users stopped using the program in the new version due to this problem in the foundations. I don't know if there is such a problem, but I think that ide is more useful and understandable compared to other programs and I wonder. I would appreciate it if you let me know where I went wrong or other deficiencies in the project. Thank you in advance

There is no problem in the basics. If you specify the contact information of the authorized person you talked to, we can follow your notification closely.

 

[merve]

Thank you so much for replying so quickly. When I removed the superstructure interactive solution option, the amount of reinforcement did not change. I think this is due to the soil class being b, that is, its low compressibility. It is written in the regulation that it should be done for C and D groups, but would it be wrong to do this solution on A and B group floors? but as you said, when I remove the large apartments, there is a serious increase in the equipment. The projects I compared are different in the municipality. friends' projects ground safety bed coefficient etc. Everything is the same, I even looked at a project on the side plot of this project, that is, almost typical projects. However, upon reflection, I realized that in the projects I examined, not all columns were connected by foundation beams. that is, even the two columns in the middle were solved with cantilevers at both ends -as if it were a single foundation -with beams. Of course, this situation causes an increase in reinforcement while reducing their concrete amount. Thank you very much for your interest.

 

[HakanŞahin]

but would it be wrong to do this solution on group A and B soils?

No. In any case, you can make a superstructure - basic interactive solution.