strengthening

take it easy... what can be done about the flooring in terms of reinforcement. I saw that there is a deflection in a slab with an aperture of 8.00x8.00 and there are cracks on the upper part of the slab. If there is a problem with the slab, what details can I apply. Jet from the bottom or the top Grouting is a solution that comes to my mind, but how can the anchorage details be applied to the beams, the flooring should be suspended, etc. I wonder if you could list the construction stages.... [email protected] my mail address.autocad, if there are details, I would appreciate if you could help. studies....
 
Good luck. Good works. In the current version of the project I have attached, there are curtains. As a result of the experiments, the core result was 5 mpa. It was requested to be strengthened at the request of the administration. It was tried to be strengthened based on this, but I could not meet the criteria for immediate use or life safety. I threw symmetrical curtains to each other. However, other existing curtains still receive strength. Actually, I defined 4 reinforcement curtains on the B and C axis, in the xx direction. however, when I look at the reports (3.10 mt long), even the existing curtains are getting too much shear force from these new curtains. I had to delete the curtains that I had removed because they received a very low shear force. In short, the curtains I designed could not reach the desired shear force level. 2-I made sheathing on the damaged columns next to the reinforcement curtains. However, this time the total shear rate in the curtains decreases from 0.85 to 0.70. It was already at the level of 0.70 in its old state. ) and again, the desired shear force does not come to the reinforcement curtains that I have designed. As a result, no matter what I did, I could not reach the desired level. There were cases where I exaggerated, but I could not get any results. Looking at the report results, I only strengthen the bad columns, but I still can't get results. I can do it. I wonder if there is a spot that I can't see because I'm constantly looking at the project. I create a title within itself by marking the tab of using the right and left columns as titles in reinforcement curtains. If you are interested, I will be glad. Take it easy, good work. If I have mistakes, if you tell me, I will fix them immediately (there are a few, but I could not dwell on them exactly)
 
Hello, The findings and suggestions for data entry in your project are as follows. 1-The material strength of the existing structure is entered as C50. I think it will be C5. 2-P43 panel is not defined as reinforcement curtain on ground floor. For this reason, there is a problem of vertical continuity between the upper floors. 3-Upper rigid basement floor number -2 must be entered. 4-Do not model the panels as shells in projects with Linear Performance analysis. (cracked section stiffness is not obtained in shell modeled shear walls) Good work
 
Thank you Mr. Levent. I have changed the material information, but in the report, under the heading "DAMAGE CONDITIONS OF CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS", C5 is displayed as "current panel" material information. Under the heading "CONSTRUCTION GENERAL INFORMATION", C40 appears in the material information. I could not understand it. I would appreciate it if you could check the data entries. If anyone solves this project, it would be nice if he could tell me where is my mistake. Because no matter how much I exaggerated (I made the coats thicker, I put curtains, etc.), I could not immediately use or catch life safety. I probably made a mistake somewhere, but I did not understand. Either I made a big mistake or the results like that... and I was going to ask this: can we define a column as a fictitious one. Because when we define a column under the beam (like sheathing on the column edge-to reduce the shear force on the existing shear, it is under the beam at the upper level of -70. For some reason, it doesn't happen when I cast a curtain or increase the sheathing). but it happens when you define a colon) relieved it a bit, but I don't know if the program detects it correctly Thank you, take it easy. (0555-612-85-29 [email protected]) I added the project
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
- If more than one material is used in the carrier element, the material is printed in the Building General Information Report, whichever material is used in more elements. (Calls using C40 class material, rather than walls using C5 class material) -There is no element definition as "fictitious column definition" in the ideCAD Static program. -I could not see a problem with data entry in the project.
 
What SN aksualigurbuz sees in your reinforcement project: LOADS: - Are the wall loads the standard wall loads given by the program? - You must add the stair load - I think the stair beam should be on the mezzanine REINFORCEMENT AND CONCRETE DETECTION - You fixed the column and beam reinforcements. column reinforcements are very few. Have you opened it and checked it? Even if there is a 1975 earthquake code, 1% reinforcement should be placed. 4Q16 is seen in your 60*60 columns and 4Q14 is seen in your 50*50 columns. This reinforcement is very little in the columns. Not even half of the 1975 earthquake code. If they built such a building, there is nothing to say WORTH. - TDY2007 Article 7.2.6.3 of your concrete values. Did you make the mean-standard deviation according to the ACCOUNT CONTROL - As far as I understand, this building of yours is an undamaged building that carries vertical loads in its current condition. This building carries vertical loads. I deleted the reinforcement curtains and column sheathing you added. When we verify with the column and beam rotation that you have already entered and fixed. this building does not carry itself with these values. (There are over 500 inadequacies) If the building is standing in place: either the concrete values are wrong, or the reinforcement is wrong, there should not be so many errors. FOUNDATION CONDITION - Foundation is there a raft in place? Are there consoles this big? If an additional foundation is to be built according to the reinforcement results of the superstructure, the condition of the foundation should be determined on site. If there is no damage in your building (crack, deflection etc.), if it carries vertical loads, I think it would be appropriate if you make a calculation according to the earthquake-free situation and strengthen it by taking into account the reinforcements (comparing them with the reinforcements in place). If the concrete and reinforcement values are as you entered, it seems more logical to decide to demolish the building. Take it easy, Ünver ÖZCAN
 
Thank you. I didn't add the ladder load. The beam loads are in normal condition. The foundation part is outer contour continuous and the inside is completely raft. There is a difference of 50 cm (between the inner raft and the outer continuous raft). For now, I have entered a full raft. The protrusion is not that long, you are right. later I entered by saying that I will fix it. The column reinforcement numbers are correct. I reached this conclusion as a result of stripping and x-ray readings within the framework of the rules of the regulation. I was not very surprised because I saw worse ones like this in every building I built (there is no beam on the basement floor. I did not believe the personnel of my own institution from the outside, from the outside). I made a service purchase with the laboratory and had it checked again and there is no beam at the end. The concrete value calculation is correct. I applied both the regulation and the results of TS 13791. I dug 4 pits from the foundation and decided that it was a raft (it had an old project and so it was proven to be correct. The reinforcement status of the building was changed to the 1975 regulation. and then stripping the reinforcements one by one and repeating them according to the x-ray results. I made an entry. That is, those reinforcements in the column and beam were made according to the stripping results. I just left the right and left support top reinforcements and mounting reinforcements in the beams as I could not see them. However, in the project I sent you, I saw the following mistake. I made a mistake in the placement of stirrups on the columns. It was not visible. Thank you very much for the warning. I immediately corrected it and brought it to the 25-30 cm range. I was happy for a moment, probably because it did not save because it was strengthening, but after making the necessary correction, it still did not meet the desired level and even gave the same result as the old one. That is the point that I do not understand this is: folks are constantly retrofitting. I've seen worse they strengthened the buildings. After all, there is a curtain in this building. I entered the curtain and sheathing of the world in a vulgar way. A person who does not know at all is doing this and retrofitting saves. This is why it does not save. I also did this: I am doing C20 instead of C5 the old material is not happening again. so it's still somewhere I think I made a big mistake and I'm trying to find it. Because I think that old buildings are almost always like that. I don't expect too much. After all, the concrete average is C14, let's get 16. Demir is already flat st1 iron. I haven't seen a place where the stirrup is compacted. Ranges 25- 30 cm. beam reinforcements are 2 flat and 1 pillar usually. It happens when there are 2 pillars. It is rare that there is a body reinforcement. It is almost like that in my project anyway. But I could not do it. I did not understand how the reinforcement does it. I reduced the number of floors, it still does not give the desired result. this is my number: 0555-612-85-29 if you call, let's talk for a moment when you are available. I don't want to make a big mistake as it is my first reinforcement job. Thank you very much for your attention, good work... I have sent a few pictures in the attachment.
 
There are 2 main problems in the project you sent, the first is the weak beams, and the second is the weakness of the existing curtains in the building. Beam problems can be tolerated to some extent (the regulation allows a certain amount of beam to pass into the forward damage zone), but the situation with existing shears is a serious problem. According to the regulation, brittle elements (Ve>Vr state) are considered in collapse state regardless of impact/capacity ratio, which brings building performance to failure level instantly. In these curtains, both the concrete quality c5 and the dressing reinforcements are extremely low. (Some even have accessories like the fi8/25). Also, header regions are not created. In this case, the shear strength of the existing curtains in the building is very low. In addition, the existing shear walls are in a position where the earthquake load cannot be ignored in the building. As you have experienced, even if you add curtains to the building, the old curtains will continue to receive earthquake loads. In order to reduce the load of the existing curtains with the addition of curtains, you need to make a significant number of reinforcement curtains and increase the rigidity of the building from the old structure to the new structure, which is not an economical and healthy solution.
 
Mr.
"aksualigurbuz":361dypjc" said:
aksualigurbuz
Click to expand...
The procedures you have described are correct. - To clarify the matter: you have already given stirrup density upside-down stirrup density in the columns. Therefore, there will be no change in the performance calculation. Does the program require earthquake regulation? - Your concrete values and reinforcement determinations are as clear as possible - I checked the current situation by giving a C25-ST III to try, like you, and it doesn't save. - So this building stands at very critical limits. My guess is your concrete value is a little above, and we are moving in calculations loads 1.4 dead loads 1.6 reinforcements can be within these limits since we used the safety factor of 1.15 (in my calculation, S18 60*60 column load on the ground floor is 172 tons with G+Q loading. For simple comparison, 48 kg/cm2 <50 kg/cm2 is too much. little big but no moment.) I think you should not tamper with any part of the building, even the slightest vibration or section weakness may cause problems. I think It seems more logical to decide to demolish the building. Take it easy Ünver ÖZCAN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top