Ver6.0050

sabit

New Member
grazes. I reviewed 6.0050 and it was pretty good. thank you to those who contributed. but there is one thing i want to ask. soil stresses in foundations are abnormally different compared to what we did in the past. I had a few of the old projects reanalyzed to compare. For example, 40 in the old version is 7 in the new version. another project, it was 22 in the past and 9 in the new one. I was not convinced about this. I would appreciate it very much if you could explain the new fundamental analysis method and its difference from the old one. I wish you good work.
 
I examined the program, it is good in general, but the torsion is not visible at 6.0012, the torsion appears at 6.0050. There is a subject that I do not understand, I guess I am adding the project, I would be very happy if a minister.
 
First of all, we thank you. In the new version, 2 changes were made regarding raft foundations: 1. The method referred to as the pseudo coupled winkler method in the literature. 2. Making raft foundation design using pavement interactive solution results. To briefly explain these changes: 1. As you know, we used "winkler springs" method in the calculation of raft foundations resting on elastic ground before. In this method, fixed value distributed springs (area springs) were defined and solutions were made under the raft foundation in proportion to the soil bearing coefficient. However, in this method, arc conjugation between adjacent areas was not taken into account. (Actually, the settlement/pressure at one point of the ground changes the bearing coefficient in the areas adjacent there) and this complex interaction can basically lead to different settlements in total. This limitation of the Winkler method can be solved in 2 ways: a) To ensure conjugateness by defining cross arcs between neighboring arc points b) By dividing the raft area into zones with the pseudo-cpupled method, increasing the spring stiffness towards the outer contour of the raft while decreasing it inward. This interaction is taken into account with the pseudo coupled method we have applied in this version. For more detailed information and a sample solution, you can review the document in the link. (From page 15)
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
In version 2. 0012, the effect of the raft on the pavement is taken into account as a whole when the interactive solution is selected[/u ], the influences at the lower points of the column were found, then these influences were applied to the raft system as a load from outside using the classical method and the raft system was also resolved within itself. In this method, while the effect of the raft foundation on the superstructure (bedding) was modeled, the effect of the superstructure on the raft behavior was not modeled. The change we made in the new version is to make the reinforced concrete design of the raft using the shell effects that emerged in the first stage (whole structure solution). As a result, The raft system behaves together with the rigidity of the structure on it. This effect also creates more economic results in the design of the raft itself. So were the solutions wrong in the past? No. The effects we have considered in the new version in the pavement->base->ground interaction are generally aimed at making more realistic analysis while relaxing your system, as you have noticed. Especially if you compare the results of version 5 with the results of the raft-pavement interaction, there may be differences, because together, in the solution, the raft system relaxes the pavement (rather shell elements instead of the built-in support at the bottom of the columns + elastic floor reduces the earthquake effects of the pavement), while the pavement relaxes the raft by generally rigidifying it. Remember that you can always transfer your system to SAP2000 with the options you choose and compare the results, especially with the pseudo coupled method, you can check which raft area and which bearing coefficients are automatically defined by the program. Good work...
 
I downloaded both of the new versions. I'm reviewing for now. but as far as I can see, a static situation has occurred as expected. good work .
 
While working on the project, the program keeps shutting itself off because it has stopped working. I have turned it on with the ctrl+shift key several times but the problem does not go away. In addition, although the vis/vik ratio of the columns that do not provide tdbyb item 3.3 in strong colon controls in the reports is greater than 0.7, a red cross mark is thrown in the relevant parts of the reports. It is not included in the error report, it should not be included anyway, but why is it crossed out as if there is a faulty situation there? thank you for your interest...
 
"constant":3j7dkzis" said:
while working on the project, it keeps shutting itself off because the program has stopped working. I turned it on with the ctrl+shift key a few times, but the problem does not go away. Also, the vis/vik ratio of the columns that still do not provide tdbyb 3.3 in strong column controls in the reports is 0.7 Although it is large, the red cross mark is thrown in the relevant parts of the reports. It is not included in the error report, it should not be included anyway, but why is it crossed out as if there is an incorrect situation there. Thank you for your attention...
Hello, It also adds the project related to the problem you mentioned are you?
 
Back
Top