German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish 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.
Risky building analysis infill walls
- Thread starter mgeresin
- Start date
I wanted to write my article under this title in order not to disperse too much. When I do risky structure analysis in my attached file, program breakage occurs. In addition, the relevant administration wants the "floor heights and the numerical data used" of the building to be seen on the printouts. It is also useful to show the geometry of the building, as in the performance analysis.
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Hello Nedim, The building importance coefficient being zero creates a problem. It is not necessary to reset the earthquake effects because the capacities of the beams are already determined according to the vertical loads as written in the risky building code.There is also an option in the risky building analysis parameters to equate the minimum capacities of the elements with the capacities to be calculated from the vertical loads..."NYILMAZ":2aw3gq2d" said:I wanted to write my article under this title in order not to clutter too much. When I do risky structure analysis in my attached file, a program break occurs.
Elastic (non-reduced) acceleration spectrum given by DBYBHY will be used in the definition of the earthquake effect in the risky building detection regulation 3.4.1. It was said that building importance factor will not be applied in earthquake calculation (I:1). I could not understand this, how earthquake forces are calculated in this regulation. Is the design earthquake for 2007 dy residence 50 years 10% valid for this regulation or is it calculated differently. If you explain, you will enlighten us. Good work.
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Hello, According to the risky building code, R=1, I=1 and earthquake acceleration ordinates multiplier 1.... For the 2007 TDY performance analysis, the same parameters are in question for 10% earthquake exposure probability for 50 years... In this sense, the same criteria for earthquake forces in risky building analysis and 10% earthquake exposure probability for 50 years in TDY 2007 performance analysis valid, but the same earthquake results cannot be obtained because the element bending rigidities and the concrete elasticity modulus are different."mgeresin":ctrymmsv" said:The elastic (non-reduced) acceleration spectrum given in DBYBHY will be used in the definition of the risky building detection regulation 3.4.1. It is said that the building importance factor will not be applied in the earthquake calculation (I:1). Is the design earthquake valid for this regulation or is it calculated differently for 2007 dy housing 50 years 10%. If you explain, you will explain us. Good work.
mhanifiata
New Member
ACCORDING TO THE CONCRETE CLASS, IT SHOULD CALCULATE 0.85*AVERAGE CORE AS Fcm-RBTE-2013. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENT VALUE AT THE RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Hello. 85% of the average concrete strength will be taken as the existing concrete strength. The condition specified in the statement - is not applied automatically. You have to calculate and enter this value. Good work"mhanifiata":1854aa55" said:IT SHOULD CALCULATE 0.85*CORE AVERAGE FCM ACCORDING TO THE CONCRETE CLASS-RBTE-2013. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENT VALUE AT THE RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS.
mhanifiata
New Member
LEVEN BEY; IT IS BEING 7.34/8=0.9175. SO I ENTER THE CONCRETE CLASS 80 KGF/CM2. IN THE RISKY BUILDING EVALUATION REPORT, THIS NUMBER IS 73.4. AS YOU SAID, I ENTERED 8*0.85=6.80, THIS TIME IT IS NOT A RISKY STRUCTURE. GIVEN A VALUE OF 6.31 IN THE REPORT. It IS 6.31/6.80=0.9175. THIS RATE IS AGAIN. SO THE PROGRAM MULTIPLY THE VALUE I ENTERED WITH A NUMBER LIKE 0.9175. I MADE THE KNOWLEDGE LEVEL EXTENSIVE, I ENTERED CONCRETE 8 THIS TIME, NOT THE RISKY BUILDING. I SAW THE VALUE OF 8.16 IN THE REPORT. I'M WELL CONCITED
Levent Özpak
New Member
Mr. Hanifi, As we talked on the phone, MegaPascal is the unit of material entered in the Design Settings. This value is converted to tf/m2. Material entered as C8 8 megapascal=815.7 tf/m2 0.1fcm=81.5 tf/m2 Good work"mhanifiata":w1axnf6b" said:LEVEN MR; IT IS 7.34/8=0.9175. SO I ENTER THE CONCRETE CLASS 80 KGF/CM2. IN THE RISKY BUILDING EVALUATION REPORT, THIS NUMBER IS 73.4. AS YOU SAID, IT IS 8*0.85. IT HAS GIVEN A VALUE OF 6.31 IN THE STRUCTURE VALUE REPORT. IT IS 6.31/6.80=0.9175. THIS RATE IS AGAIN. SO THE PROGRAM MULTIPLE THE VALUE I ENTERED WITH A NUMBER LIKE 0.9175. I MADE THE COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION LEVEL OF THE CONCRETE 8.16 I ENTERED THE CONCRETE DARISK.16 I ENTERED GOOD DARISK.16 I'm Confused
He mentions that nbi<1.4 equivalent dy nbi>1.4 mode combination method will be used in risky building analysis. Although nbi is <1.4 in the irregularity reports in the account outputs, when we apply the equivalent dy to the rbte analysis, it is 1.4 in the rbte analysis report. In other words, apply a mod unit greater than 1.4. The nbi value may be different in irregularities and a different value in the rbte analysis, should it be the same? Can mod birl be applied to all structures, so both nbi<1.4 and nbi>1.4 good work
Levent Özpak
New Member
Since the stiffnesses of the elements used in both analyzes are different, the nbi values may also be different. The analysis with the mode combination method can be applied to all structures. Good work"mgeresin":1xna7dm5" said:He mentions that nbi<1.4 equivalent dy nbi>1.4 mod combination method will be used in risky building analysis. In the report, 1,4 is displayed as x. That is, it says to apply a mod birl greater than 1.4. Should the nbi value be different in irregularities, a different value may be obtained in the rbte analysis, should it be the same? Can mod birl be applied to all structures, that is, both nbi<1.4 and nbi>1 ,4 good work
There is a building, its outer walls are surrounded by 50 cm stone walls, there are no columns inside, there are columns in the middle of the building. Can we define stone walls as panels to solve this structure with reinforced concrete? How will we choose these panels without reinforcement, how much should we give the concrete value, or how do we model this structure.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Performance and risk analysis of masonry type structures are not performed in the program."mgeresin":6aqbgou0" said:There is a building, its outer walls are surrounded by 50cm stone walls, there are no columns inside, there are columns in the middle of the building. Can we define the stone walls as panels to solve this building with reinforced concrete. How will we select these panels without reinforcement, how much will we choose the concrete value? We need to give information or how do we model this structure.
Levent Özpak
New Member
Sigma/h values calculated by taking R=1 They are the values in the Sigma/h columns in the Floor Force section Sigma/h: It is the floor effective relative story drift ratio."mgeresin":3ojvoehe" said:Are the limit values in the d/h limit column on the right side of the equation in the Risky Building detection report outputs? Is d/h the relative floor drift ratio?.
Levent Özpak
New Member
If you are asking about the d/h(Sigma/h) in the Critical Floor wall effects report, RBY item 3.5 In .2, the limit value is specified as 0.015. That is, the value on the right side of the d/h column is the limit value given in the regulation. D/h=Effective relative translation value ratio (See RBY) If there is something unclear or if you have a different question, contact us by phoneI asked if the d/h boundary column limit values are the right side of the equation regarding the d/h boundary, can you elaborate on the d/h a bit
Levent Özpak
New Member
Yes, the values on the right are the limit values.