strengthening

M

mhanifiata

New Member
I think it is necessary to give more weight to the strengthening analysis. because the problem in this regard is very big in terms of existing structures. ide should pay special attention to this issue. I think it can be an ide reference program in Turkey. but it requires extensive work. Institutions' perspective should be changed. The program itself should also change radically (reinforcing)... ide, which I have always considered as an ide user, does not show the necessary sensitivity to this work. like a stepchild, this empowerment business... institutions also use it well. a xxx4. He has a love for witches. need to change this.
 
Various performance levels are defined during the retrofit of buildings. Is it possible to combine and report them in the idea? for example, the minimum performance levels required in a building used as a school are HK for 50 years 10%, CG FOR 50 YEARS 2%... my opinion is as follows; if only there was a return repeating the structural analysis before the performance analysis. that is, if we click on the linear analysis button and a front menu comes up, here is the core etc. information entries, the desired performance levels for the building, the purpose of use of the building (by writing clearly), the existence of the projects (reinforced concrete, architecture, approval year date, province, district...) are entered in one go. accordingly, what if the knowledge level of the structure was determined and then the analysis CAN BE CONDUCTED AND REPORTED sequentially for CG, HK?
 
I think a front table can be added to the retrofit part of the ide. it is also about entering the cores into the system. about the calculation of core mean and standard deviation values... about obtaining the value of fck and Ej according to the selected level of knowledge... I am doing these in excel right now. it also breaks the report integrity. If there was an information entry screen integrated into the ide, we could directly transfer these core values. I think it will be more collective.
 
There should be flexibility in the entry of element details... In the attached file, I have given the current status of a column in the idea and in the application.
 
In the column I sent, the reinforcement is placed by ide in the 1st way. In the application project (existing structure), the reinforcement arrangement is in the 2nd column. what can be done about it...
 
"mhanifiata":2p0zvpen" said:
various performance levels are defined at the stage of strengthening the buildings. Is it possible to combine and report them in the idea? For example, the required minimum performance levels in a building used as a school are HK for 50 years 10%, FOR 50 YEARS 2% CG... my opinion is as follows; if there were only a repetitive turn of the structure analysis before the performance analysis, that is, if we clicked the linear analysis button and a pre-menu would appear before us, the information inputs I mentioned before, such as core etc., the desired performance levels for the structure, the purpose of use of the structure ( clearly written), the existence of the projects (reinforced concrete, architecture, approval year date, province, district...) are entered in one go. What if the knowledge level of the building is determined accordingly, then the analysis CAN BE MADE sequentially for CG, HK and REPORTED?
Click to expand...
If these can be done and the performance values of the reinforced structure can be compared with the existing structure in the conclusion, the issue becomes well understood.
 
new building analysis and retrofit analysis can be separated if necessary. Both systems can be considered and developed separately. or if a retrofit project is preferred during reporting within the system, there is no regulation control statement in the report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top