strengthening

Hello, It would be appropriate to enter the upper level basement floor number - 1 in your project. In addition, if cracked section rigidity is to be considered in the performance analysis of the panels, it would be appropriate not to model them as shells. Good work
 
The performance level of the project may not change. However, analysis results vary. For example, you can examine the Floor horizontal forces.
 
Even though the reinforcement curtain under almost all beams and sheathing is done on all columns, there is still no change in performance, so I wonder if a mistake was made in the data entry.
 
There does not appear to be a problem in data entry in general. The performance level of your project is in the collapse zone due to the beams on the ground floor. Reinforcement corrosion and insufficient clamping length multipliers are entered as 0.7 in the beam settings. In the performance analysis options, reinforcement realization coefficients are entered as 0.7. In the light of these data, it can be seen that the moment capacities of beams have decreased considerably. Note: Values such as 12fi12, 21fi12, 13fi12 for mounting, straight and bending reinforcements of the K05 beam are entered. Therefore, the beam is in the position of the brittle element. (The upper left addition of K06 is also more than it should be)
 
You can break the beams that hit the curtain, that is, the beams remaining in the curtain, if their condition is very bad and include them in the curtain. that means ignoring that beam. If there is an excessive demand for reinforcement as you say, you can contact the administration / approval authority / control / owner and take a demolition decision. the general trend is demolition if the retrofit cost reaches 30-40% of the rebuild cost...
 
Life safety has been ensured with its final version. Could you check the system and data entry and share your ideas?
 
"tedarmi":324o0dxi" said:
Can you please share your ideas by looking at the system and the data entry and share your ideas
Click to expand...
Dear Tedarmi, I wanted to point out a few points that caught my eye 1- C15 was used in the column jackets, it should be fixed 2- All columns, beams and the realization coefficient of 0.7 was used on the curtains. 3- Tickers were taken into account in the shear calculation, you cannot be sure of the cross-ties in existing structures. - You have chosen the building system as highly ductile. It would be more correct to choose mixed and use R=6. Existing structures will not act as ductile as this. 6- If the side facades are not adjacent, the columns must be sheathed all around. This way, they do not work efficiently and do not create a wrapping effect. 7- In the parts where the mantles go down to the foundation and the foundations need reinforcement in the wall foundation connections 8- 70-75% of the horizontal shear has been given to the curtains Do not ignore the damage to the beams in the structure you are building. They become subordinate.
 
The sheathing had to be C25, I overlooked it, and I fixed it right away....when we sheathing from four sides in some columns, the mantle edge does not press on the foundation....the reason why I got the realization coefficient of 0.7 is because the building is 14 years old, the owner of the building built it according to his mind and the concrete used in the superstructure is made of sea sand. hand thrown..
 
Dear Tedarmi, I mentioned in my previous reply that when you make a mantle, this problem can be inside or outside. For this reason, under the mantle-made column, you need to widen the foundation by approximately 50 cm to include the mantle. The three-sided mantle does not provide wrapping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top