Results are 0 tf/m2 in beamed raft

S

s.varlik.celik

New Member
Hello, I have a problem, I would appreciate if you can help. I have a system like the one in the appendix and I decided to make a raft with beams for the foundation since the ground bearing capacity is low. However, when I look at the crust results after the analysis, all of the soil stresses are 0 tf/m2. When I click on the Force and reinforcement fields tab, I see meaningless values as below.
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.
Could I be making a mistake somewhere? Let me tell you a mistake I may have made on the subject. When I first designed the foundation, I did the analysis and some of my beams and two raft slabs had Zq negatives (although my beams were problematic, I got a non-zero value). I did some resizing on some beams to fix the issues. Before performing the analysis again, I canceled the automatic analysis creation by clicking the "Create automatic analysis system" button and clicked the "Create analysis system" button next to it. When I did the analysis later, I encountered such a situation. Moreover, the moments have been reset in my beams on all floors... A few information about the system All foundation beams are 100cm deep. Widths can vary. The rafts are 50 cm thick and at -50 elevation. I made a superstructure interactive solution. What do you think could be the problem? Addendum:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Hello there; In your project, there are errors caused by the definition of the basic system, the contradictions of the data entry of the program (for the foundation), these cause insolvency during the basic analysis. There is no problem in the analysis when the existing foundation system is deleted and the foundation is defined appropriately again. * Elevator curtain cannot be placed on raft in rafter raft foundation definition. *In the definition of rafter raft, one edge of the raft cannot be covered with the slab edge. *Foundation beams must be entered piece by piece, taking into account the nodal points of the panel elements and columns. *If the rafter raft foundation is defined, the Structure-Foundation Interactive solution option cannot be used. *There are logic errors in panel element definitions. Apart from the errors in the foundation, there are very serious design errors in your superstructure that are against the general engineering understanding and should not be. I tried to mark some of them. I think it would be more appropriate to fix these errors first. *The floor spaces in the hollow block floor were tried to be carried through discontinuous inner consoles. The consoles should be supported to continue. *There are carrier beams tangential to the columns, which should not be. *There are beam connections that cannot be understood how the load transfer is in the beams and that should not continue in the form of the console of the console. *There are carrier beams with varying cross-sections, if it is to be done, great care must be taken. Best regards.
 
In addition to the 2m project proposals by Mr. s.varlik.celik, you can solve the superstructure interactively by giving the base 60 cm high beamless raft, -the upper rigid basement floor number -3, -. The same design mistakes you made in this project have been answered in this forum. If you examine it, it will give you an idea about how to fix these errors.
 
Thank you for the information you provided, as I made the rafter raft for the first time, there were some things I did not know of course. I agree with the elevator, anyway, I sent it to show you the system right away, I didn't bother with the elevator. I'm thinking of defining the foundation of the elevator (for a 1.5 m elevator shaft) 50 cm below the 1m foundation. I'm planning to sit it on a separate raft from the system. I'd like to get your opinions on this. As for the mistakes I made at the top of the build. I was thinking of extending the beams that look like cantilevers at the edges of the floor spaces and connecting them to the columns or beams opposite, I will not leave them that way, but in some parts the architectural obstacle gets stuck. For example, I want to make the balconies above like this
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
And a column below Let me talk about the tangent part
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Instead of turning around my floor with 20 cm beams I extended the K46 beam a little further and defined the K52 beam and circled it with the slab edge. The reason why I didn't connect it to the column is that it is given this way in the architecture. In addition, I extended the console on the side of the space where the ladder will come from and connected it to the big beam. I would be grateful if you could offer your thoughts on this matter. Thank you for the information you gave, Mr. Unver, but I did as you said, but it didn't work. Best regards
 
"s.varlik.celik":gptc77y4" said:
Thank you for the information you gave me, of course, there were things I didn't know because I made the rafter raft for the first time. I agree with the elevator, I sent the system right away to show you, I didn't bother with the elevator. I'm thinking of defining it 50 cm below the 1m foundation (for a 1.5 m elevator shaft). I was thinking of attaching them to the beams anyway, but I won't leave them that way, but in some parts the architectural obstacle gets stuck.For example, I want to make the balconies above like this. Let me also talk about the part that is tangent to the column below. I returned with the slab edge. The reason is that it is given in this way in architecture. In addition, I extended the console on the side of the space where the ladder will come from and connected it to the big beam. I would be grateful if you could offer your thoughts on this matter. Thank you for the information you gave, Mr. Unver, but I did as you said, but it didn't work. Best regards
Click to expand...
Dear s.varlik.celik, I think you should pay attention to what 2m Proje and Mr. Unver say. From what you have written, I see and feel that you do not understand them very well. For example, the subject of tangent beams and interior consoles... I want to say something to my friends who use all the programs in front of you. -In terms of data entry- Not everything a program can do is right, and everything it can't do is not wrong or impossible.[ /b] This is true for all programs, not just ideStatik.
 
Dear colleague s.varlık Çelik, I will make a few humble suggestions from you as an older brother with some professional experience. First of all, when we graduate as civil engineers, if we try to make a static project with the theoretical knowledge we have gained at school, we will make mistakes that should not be made as you have sent in the example. Not every newly graduated civil engineer can solve a static project. We should examine in detail the books containing the stages. we are members of a professional group that undertakes quite a lot of responsibilities. Professional mistakes that we have made consciously or unconsciously can lead to difficult results. You should firstly read the books and resources containing the 2007 earthquake regulation ts 500 and related building design principles, and hurry to educate yourself on the issues you feel lacking. I recommend you to work diligently without hesitation. I am sure that as you start to go through these stages, all kinds of technical information about the project construction stages will come to life better in your mind. These are the thoughts I express with good intentions to all my newly graduated colleagues. Best Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top