solution

[cem]

We have been working on the attached project for about 1 week. After arranging the negative elements (beam column foundation beam) after the analysis in the project, it gives the same error after reanalysis. Even if we make some beams as 35/70 to try, the solution is still negative. We look forward to your help in this regard, thanks in advance. good work

 

[2m proje]

Hello there; The main problem that strikes the eye at first glance and causes errors in your project is the absence of a continuous foundation beam under your PD15-PD07-PD6-PD17 shear walls and the solution of the building model with Structure-Foundation interaction. In this case, all your column and wall elements, except the 4 wall elements (PD15-PD07-PD6-PD17 ) are displaced together with the foundation, while these 4 walls resist vertical displacements in the structure. Therefore, many elements associated with these 4 acts are negatively affected by this attempt to resist. In order to reach the right solution; 1- You should define the Basic Beam under these 4 curtains, or 2- You should not make a Structure-Foundation Interactive solution or, 3- You should define the Beamless Plate Raft as a basis and make a Structure-Foundation Interactive solution. Best regards.

 

[cem]

we can understand it as superstructure interaction when we mean the building interactive solution. Also, the solution was made as a matte foundation. The 120 cm thick matte foundation did not save again. Even though we made a solution with a superstructure interactive, the results are still negative. What can you suggest?

 

[meraklı]

we can understand this as superstructure interaction when we mean the building interactive solution. Also, the solution was made as a matte foundation. The 120 cm thick matte foundation did not save again. Even though we made a solution with a superstructure interactive, the results are still negative. What can you suggest? Thanks

Press the Recover button and wait a bit.

 

[cem]

Mr. levent, Mr. Hakan, it is very surprising to receive comments like this in such a serious company.

 

[HakanŞahin]

Hello,

we have been working on the attached project for about 1 week. After arranging the negative elements (beam column foundation beam) after the analysis in the project, it gives the same error after reanalysis. To try some beams 35/70 Even if we do this, the solution is still negative. We are waiting for your help on this issue

Hello; In order to reach the right solution; 1- You should define the Basic Beam under these 4 curtains, or 2- You should not make a Structure-Foundation Interactive solution or, 3- You should define the Beamless Plate Raft as a basis and make a Structure-Foundation Interactive solution.

The proposals of the 2m project have pointed you in the right direction.

also the solution was made as matte foundation 120 cm thick matte foundation still did not save the superstructure, although we made an interactive solution, the results are still negative. What can you suggest

You can add the 120 cm thick project that does not save to the message .. (It is necessary to look at why it does not save and take precautions accordingly.) For example, if the ground tension is exceeded, increasing the thickness will not solve the problem, it is necessary to increase the raft area.

 

[Levent Özpak]

we can understand this as superstructure interaction when we mean the building interactive solution. Also, the solution was made as a matte base. The 120 cm thick matte base still did not save. Even though we made a solution with a superstructure interactive, the results are still negative.

Structure Interactive solution means superstructure interactive solution.In the attached sample project, the raft floor height is 80 cm and it saves.

 

[insmuh_gk]

There is no problem with this system! Everything is as planned..! RESULTS. I downloaded the project, all I did was delete the rafter raft system and model a beamless raft system, so it's not 120 cm, which is reasonable, so 70 cm. I only grew 1 meter from the outer axles, the superstructure is ok, it did not provide shear safety in 9 columns in the whole building This is achieved by enlarging the column size of 5 by 10 cm There is no problem with the beams. It works fine in the system, the 1st natural vibration period is 0.58 sec in the solution without pavement interaction, 0.62 sec in the solution with pavement interaction. There is basically no problem, a reasonable reinforcement was chosen for 70 cm thickness ( Q14/11- Q16/16, Q14/ 12-Q16/16) There is no problem in terms of ground safety tension, in all meshes I have looked at, the tension is under safety. AS A RESULT, THIS SYSTEM IS WORKING BEAUTIFULLY (CLICK WITH ANOTHER EXPRESSION) ..! It is evening, I have to take the order given by the lady and go home, if desired, I will add the solved project tomorrow. Good evening everyone, good work, good and halal earnings, I wish you all the best... G. KÖSE